Southwark Spine Consultation: Peckham High Street to Lordship Lane

[ed_pete]

I received the following email today and thought I'd share it with the Forum. It relates to the Councils proposals for the "Southwark Spine" cycling route from Peckham High Street to Lordship Lane (near the Library). The document that details the proposed road changes is too large to attach but if you follow the link it's at the bottom of the page under related documents.

Closing date to reply to consultation 4th December

(As an aside - I've still to hear the outcome of the previous consultation about Bellenden http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1616398,page=1)

Dear Stakeholder

We have launched a consultation on proposed changes Southwark Spine walking and cycling route between East Dulwich and Peckham.

The route is not just for experienced cyclists but for anyone who wants to use quieter, lower-traffic routes, providing an environment for those cyclists who want to ride at a more leisurely speed.

Details of the consultation can be found here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/

The consultation closes on Monday 4 December 2017.

We are also holding a drop-in session on Thursday 16 November, 6:30pm to 8:30pm, at All Saints Peckham Church, Blenheim Grove, London SE15 4QS.

If you have any further questions regarding the consultation please email us at [email protected]

Please feel free to forward this email to other interested parties.

We look forward to receiving your views.

Regards

Albert Ang | Consultant Project Manager

[edhistory]

Consultation (a specialist noun when used by Southwark Council) also includes these streets:

"Other areas for improvement include measures to calm speeds and improve visibility for pedestrians and cyclists on Lyndhurst Way, Melon Road, Bellenden Road, Holly Grove, Chadwick Road, Choumert Road, Maxted Road, Oglander Road, Adys Road, Nutbrook Street, Amott Road, Underhill Road, Whateley Road, Silvester Road, Pellatt Road, Rodwell Road, Heber Road, Jennings Road, Goodrich Road, Crystal Palace Road, and Landells Road."

The yellow paint manufacturers will need to ramp up production for all these extra double yellow lines.

[Abe_froeman]

That's almost a hundred car parking spaces lost, not counting the upgrading of single yellow lines to double yellow lines all along bellenden road up to the junction with Maxted Road.

The works around chadwick / bellenden road only really make sense if they are going to reopen Camberwell Grove. If not ten it will be carnage down there.

[spider69]

It is already carnage.

Since the new CPZ around the "Toastrack" parking on Chadwick Road and Grove Park does not exist for residence.

If a resident moves their car they do not get back in again.

Ask Southwark if they factored this into their plans you never get an answer.

Consultation like most things with Southwark lately token effort all already decided.

The only good thing is the One Way system, put in 1989 has proved that it the right system. With all the weight of traffic due to Camberwell Grove being closed there have been no accidents to either pedestrians, cyclists, motor vehicle or any other moving body nor any negative comments on this forum.

Will Southwark take notice, I doubt it.

[DaveR]

"Consultation (a specialist noun when used by Southwark Council)"

Consultation is a specialist noun when used by any public body - there is a whole load of case law about when the duty to consult arises and what public bodies have to do to defeat a subsequent legal challenge to a decision. This is absolutely not an issue unique to Southwark.

[bargee99]

If you look at the results of the "consultation" on the Denmark Hill CPZ it states that 49% of respondees were in favour but that only 15% replied. That is actually then less that 8% in favour but the council, like the London Mayor in his surveys, will state that a majority were in approval. I know that some people will say that if you were worried then you should have replied but I think this is simply a cynical hijacking of the democratic system to just get the results that they want.

[jimlad48]

The problem with every CPZ consultation is that, as with all local democracy issues, it often attracts low turnouts. In the case of the Toastrack, we'd had several consultations over several years where the result was a resounding NO, and this was respected by the Council. Not once did you hear a peep out of people suggesting that the low turn outs involved represented a hijacking of the democratic system.

Strangely its only once a YES result emerges, often on a much higher turnout that previous NO votes, that people imply its a stitch up and affront to democracy.

You can't have it both ways.

[spider69]

Unfortunately the Council does not seem to realise what the damage is to other areas.

They want all of Southwark to be CPZ under their control and look no further than the red line on their map.

Ask for a computer model of the possible problems from a CPZ Southwark will not reply. Ask Cllr Wingfield for an explanation all he will do is say he has asked the people concerned to supply the answer. It never comes.

I am glad you are happy and I am glad a small % got what you wanted. Your happiness is for others on a lot larger scale misery.

As Bargee99 wrote the % results will be used for the Councils overall plan even if they do not reflect the overall truth.

If 51% of the people canvassed do not vote for a yes or no it cannot be taken as a valid result.

It only takes a very small % of a vocal group to get the vote the council wants.

The closure or open result for the bridge will be interesting.

[alex_b]

I live in one of the affected roads and had heard nothing about this. The planned reduction in parking will make it impossible for local residents to park, it's already bad enough with the stupid double yellows at every corner.

It also appears to do nothing about the use of this "spine" as a rat-run, which is what many of us residents actually care about. Many of the "improved sightlines" will likely increase speeds and make things worse.

My take is this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

[taper]

The requirement to have a consultation doesn't imply having a vote though. We elect councillors to make decisions, albeit in consultation where the law requires it or it's considered desirable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Consultation (a specialist noun when used by

> Southwark Council) also includes these streets:

>

> "Other areas for improvement include measures to

> calm speeds and improve visibility for pedestrians

> and cyclists on Lyndhurst Way, Melon Road,

> Bellenden Road, Holly Grove, Chadwick Road,

> Choumert Road, Maxted Road, Oglander Road, Adys

> Road, Nutbrook Street, Amott Road, Underhill Road,

> Whateley Road, Silvester Road, Pellatt Road,

> Rodwell Road, Heber Road, Jennings Road, Goodrich

> Road, Crystal Palace Road, and Landells Road."

>

> The yellow paint manufacturers will need to ramp

> up production for all these extra double yellow

> lines.

Oh FFS. Does this mean yet more speedbumps, more noise and more pollution (and more sport for van drivers).

[alex_b]

taper Wrote:

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

> The requirement to have a consultation doesn't

> imply having a vote though. We elect councillors

> to make decisions, albeit in consultation where

> the law requires it or it's considered desirable.

If any of our Councillors in the Lane ward ever engaged with their constituents I'd be more persuaded by this argument.

[Nigello]

Alex_b I'm not in a that ward but I've tried - in vain - to contact councillors so I share your frustration and disdain.

[Sunglasses]

I think it's a great idea. The roads between Peckham Road and East Dulwich Road are total rat runs full of non-local cars taking short cuts. Most of these roads are residential streets which often are not wide enough for two cars to pass. The car traffic should not be on those roads, it should be mainly on the major arteries i.e. Grove Lane, Dog Kennel Hill, Rye Lane, Peackham Rye etc

For example, if you live on Adys Road it is a constant battle of cars racing to squeeze past each other, racing between speed bumps and junctions with side streets. The diesel fumes outside both St Johns and St Clements Primary and Belham Primary are really bad for the children.

Why not encourage bicycles on these residential streets? Bicycles are quiet, they are non-polluting. They don't take up a lot of road space.

And, let's not forget that many cyclists are also car drivers (me included) so a journey by bicycle is actually having a positive effect for other road users (yes, even car drivers!) as it substitutes car use.

[reds]

The 'mini Holland' scheme introduced in Walthamstow is an ideal model Southwark should be looking at. The 'village' area especially was a rat run similar to Bellenden, Adys etc and the scheme has pushed all traffic to the major roads with traffic being cut by half in the streets where the scheme was introduced.

[alex_b]

Sunglasses- I agree with you that this is what should happen. However I don?t see anything in the scheme that will actually achieve this (eg road closures, width limits etc) all that is happening is we?re losing a lot of parking and getting more speed humps. For residents of Adys I fear this makes things worse not better.

[rollflick]

Southwark already has a policy of installing yellow lines on junctions and is gradually doing so. See here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1650717,page=1

That seems outside the scope of this consultation. It really should make clear what is Business as Usual and what are extra parking changes proposed as part of the spine. A CPZ is likely in these streets before 2020 anyway.

Agree 100% that we should be copying Walthamstow, where conditions for walking and cycling were radically improved by cutting out residential rat-running, reducing motor traffic overall. The proposal here to put some extra humps and cycle logos on rat-runs will at best be ineffective. The cycle lanes for the Bellenden gyratory, which a majority of those expressing a view called for removal of a year ago, would disappear when needed most and would be downright dangerous though.

While the spine proposals may encourage a few more adults will cycle by signing a new route, they simply won't offer stress free conditions that would encourage more vulnerable people to cycle. This would widen inequality further: already Southwark's children are the 4th most overweight in the UK but adults in London have the lowest rates of obesity.

https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/lack-of-exercise-is-a-weighty-problem/

The current proposals for the spine will just widen the gap between 20/30 somethings cycling more and children being unable to incorporate exercise into their daily lives. Councillors seem happy to accept awards for their cycling strategy but then too spineless actually implement it.

[alex_b]

The proposed new double yellows are not just at the junction (these are already in place) but also opposite t-junctions presumably to allow better traffic flow and let bigger vehicles navigate the tight corners on these rat runs. This is why I think it?s worse than useless, it will actually encourage rat running.

[uncleglen]

the consultation questionnaire is online now and leaflets were posted on Saturday.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am all in favour of encouraging cycling, if it's serious. I am not in favour of paint and speed bumps, which just increase pollution.

[Sally Eva]

plus 1

paint has few protective qualities and occasional speed bumps don't stop people racing from one to the next. Speed cushions make life a lot worse by pushing fast oncoming traffic into the middle of the road.

Sinusoidal humps do slow traffic because they are unavoidable but, as you say, the accelerate, brake, accelerate, brake effect is not very wonderful. They work when put in at very high densities. Southwark doesn't put them in at high densities.

This report discusses pollution and speed humps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38156778

[red devil]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> ...it's already bad enough with

> the stupid double yellows at every corner.

Surely this is sensible, otherwise parked cars would create dangerous blind spots for cars turning in and out of a road...

[Sue]

red devil Wrote:

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

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...it's already bad enough with

> > the stupid double yellows at every corner.

>

> Surely this is sensible, otherwise parked cars

> would create dangerous blind spots for cars

> turning in and out of a road...

It is a nightmare trying to turn out of my road when something has parked at the corner.

I thought this was illegal, anyway? Decades ago I was fined for parking too near a corner.

[Sally Eva]

the Highway Code says drivers should not park less than 10m from the corner. As we know this is completely ignored both by drivers and PCSOs. The HC is taken into account by courts when deciding on negligence and compensation but this is of course after an accident.

So the council is introducing 7.5m double yellows on corners in order to control this behaviour without waiting for someone to get hurt. I think it should be 10m myself.

its HC rule 243 and it is discussed here: https://www.drivingtesttips.biz/nearest-you-can-park-to-a-junction.html

[alex_b]

The residential roads around here have precious little parking already and losing dozens of spaces is a real problem. Also my anecdotal experience is that cars seems to drive faster now they have "better visibility" and we have more large vehicles trying to negotiate tight residential roads than we did before. This is a token action aimed at forcing residents into a CPZ rather than any attempt to improve road safety or reduce the traffic problem from rat running.