Southwark Consultation on no entry - Denmark Hill/Champion Hill

[betternowthanthen]

Yes our thoughts on this poor decision have now come true,

Took 5-10mins longer for my journeys, so my car engine is idling sitting at traffic lights far longer than needed, I'm idle far more than needed as other cars have no place to go....my journey time is extend, my engine is burning more fuel than needed......MORE POLLUTION IN THE AIR. More traffic! Well done, sure that was the council's intentions.

So by our clever council creating a problem that didn't exist, shoving more traffic that's adding to other traffic existing using the alternative routes, they have made more traffic/pollution problems for us all, with knock on affects that will anger other drivers/commuters/locals!

Delivery vans, cabs, tradesman, will also be affected, well in fact everyone will have similar issues who need a vehicle to create income, adding to thier woes with added lost time and fuel costs some little.

This only makes life hard and increasing pollution/traffic, which has have already proven by testament here on this thread. Hope the council are monitoring the increase pollution, and traffic, with before and after the closure, sure that's what they wanted, smiling at those poor results that will show they are losing a battle with traffic and pollution, which is almost impossible to win at this time.

The consultation of only 80 reply's or so close to this number is not it's worth in dog poo, sure the 100's if not 1000's of other people didn't know about the consultation, or was this the council keeping things hush hhush once again?!

Many more votes on the consultation would be needed to get a real perspective of the of peoples feelings of this stupid idea, an idea that has already failed.

By doing nothing to the change of direction of traffic on this road would

A: stop more pollution and traffic to already busy roads with traffic lights

B: Stop time wasting getting from A-B

C: Saved a lot of money being wasted from the tax we pay for this badly thought proposal being implemented. In fact i'd like to know the cost too! Sure it wasn't cheap.

I can't wait to pollute the roads more than needed, and it's only because I'm forced to, and don't want to break the law ignoring the no right turn either.

Happy driving everyone :)

[CityMum]

What a completely ridiculous idea this is proving to be. Having been promised, time and time and time again, a consultation on how to relieve the congestion and polution in the Denmark Hill/Camberwell Green area, hey presto the council have come up with a scheme to force even more traffic onto Denmark Hill. The area around Kings College is already dangerously poluted as it is. We all acknowlege that air polution needs to be tackled but increasing journey times and forcing cars into even more residential roads is not the way to do this. The excuse for coninuing the banned right turn at the top of Dog Kennel Hill/Grove Lane because of the impact this would have on buses coming from Dog Kennel Hill is pathetic given that the traffic now backs up to the George Canning and even more traffic is joining Dog Kennel HIll by Sainsburys. It must be miserable for Grove Lane residents on what is already a busy road. Added to this, the Grove Lane access to the car park behind Morrisons has also been blocked off, forcing even more traffic towards the Green, where carriageways are being narrowed! I'm sure a bunch of primary school kids could have come up with a better idea than this.

[MelissaVF]

Totally agree - it's utter chaos and I am at a total loss to see any benefit to anyone. I am a resident and was against all the changes...I drive, I cycle, I walk along Champion Hill. Driving and Cycling it is worse than before. Walking no change I guess apart from at the moment all the traffic feels like added pollution. All my car journeys have been longer. Colossal waste of money.

[richard tudor]

Following an email to Richard Livingstone regarding timed restrictions the following has been received back.

As it was never proposed as an option in the consultation document I do find it hard to believe it was ever considered but never mentioned.

The answer could have come from Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon), "Yes Minister.himself.

If all viability and criteria had not been considered in full why implement the closure. This ridiculous idea should not have been implemented.

So people you have been legged over 100% by Southwark who wanted this scheme and no other.

They will not consider anything thing until a years time and then it will stay. I think we all know that.

"Livingstone, Richard

Tue 12/02/2019 16:15

Dear Mr Tudor

Our officers have considered the proposal for timed restrictions. However, at this stage they are unable to implement such a timed restriction as they are still exploring the viability and criteria to introduce such a restriction

I have bene told that our officers are happy to explore this option in the future, depending on the outcomes of trial"

Regards

Councillor Richard Livingstone

Cabinet member for Environment, Transport Management and Air Quality

Labour councillor for Old Kent Road Ward

[Earl Aelfheah]

CityMum Wrote:

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

> What a completely ridiculous idea this is proving

> to be. Having been promised, time and time and

> time again, a consultation on how to relieve the

> congestion and polution in the Denmark

> Hill/Camberwell Green area, hey presto the council

> have come up with a scheme to force even more

> traffic onto Denmark Hill.

It?s outrageous that Camberwell was left out of plans for the Bakerloo line extension on the grounds that there was no way to stuff the pockets of developers with tax payers money in the process and then the proposed reopening of a station on the Thameslinknline was also knocked back. If we really are going to tackle pollution and congestion in SE London, someone is going to have to tackle the absence of the tube or similarly regular metro service.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...and TFL are going to have to change their policy of being the public subsidy executor for Galliard Homes.

[Ruskin]

Paul Lupton Wrote:

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

>

> 2nd there are no signs indicating it is blocked

> off especially at Dog Kennel Hill lights by the

> school so me and other countless vehicles

> (including a Southwark Councillorry) had to turn

> round at the cycle lane - warning there?s a camera

> for any misdemeanours !

I've just seen a driver turn right at Champion Hill, mount the kerb and squeeze through the narrow cycle lane right in front of three Southwark engineers. People, there's a camera right opposite watching for this!

Pictures show the junction opposite the UCL Halls and the sign on Dog Kennel.

[Townleygreen]

Is the section of Champion Hill beyond that no right turn now one way?

[rendelharris]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Is the section of Champion Hill beyond that no

> right turn now one way?

No, people from the houses/halls between the junction and Denmark Hill can still drive out onto Denmark Hill.

[Townleygreen]

OK that makes sense. Thanks Rendel.

[Ruskin]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Is the section of Champion Hill beyond that no

> right turn now one way?

Good question. I dodn't walk down to the bottom of Champion. I don't think it's one-way, though.

[richard tudor]

Grove Lane this morning. All the way down to Denmark Hill. To bad if you wanted to get to Herne Hill or Rusking Park, Kings College.The master plan is working. Can anyone remember it this bad before Champion Hill was closed.

A revision of this crazy plan is needed immediately.

They could not see this happening.

[uncleglen]

Am I glad I haven't got children at the school....

[PeterW]

I'm going to go against the tone of most posts here and try and argue why I think the Champion Hill scheme, while it has problems, is the right thing to do.

To begin with, I think it's not ambitious enough ? it should be (as originally agreed in the consultation a few years ago), to make CH access-only in both directions, ie at the three-way junction it should be entirely blocked to motor vehicles. But I'd also say that it should be introduced as part of wider changes to the whole area, to make it less convenient to drive along smaller, residential streets. Individual, one-off schemes like this just risk pushing the same traffic onto other residential roads. Now I get why Southwark are limited in how much they can do at once ? it?s down to funding ? but it seems to me the point is not to argue *against* individual schemes but *in favour of* doing both these and more.

Why? Because it's vital both that cars are kept, where possible, off residential streets, and more widely that measures are taken to make driving short distances less convenient, thus pushing people onto other modes of transport. Of course, some people need to use cars, vans etc, but more than a third of all car trips in London are less than 2km ? ie possible to walk for many, and can be done on a bike in about ten minutes. But people are less likely to walk ? and definitely won?t cycle ? when the roads feel so perilous and feral. Champion Hill is meant to be part of Quietway 7, a route aimed at slower, less-experienced riders. But before the scheme riding along it was terrible, especially the section with all the pinch points.

Any why should we be seeking to make this change? Because the current situation is both unsustainable and a massive social injustice. Factors like the growth of Uber and Amazon mean roads are ever-more congested. Doing nothing isn?t an option. And private cars are a part of the problem. In Southwark, almost two-thirds of households don?t own a car, and those who do are disproportionately likely to be wealthier. So you have a situation where a richer minority is imposing huge costs ? noise, danger, pollution, congestion ? on everyone. Pollution outside schools is a massive problem in London (and disproportionately affects schools in poorer areas ? a common feature of traffic-related harm) but you?re not going to solve it by opposing every single scheme to reduce traffic. Instead, you need to argue for more of them. Most inner-London primary schools have small catchment areas, and the bulk of pupils could walk, cycle or scoot. The fact many don?t is often because they feel the roads are too perilous, given the number of cars ? that cycle needs to be broken. Eventually, as shorter car trips are replaced by people using buses, bikes, foot etc, it gets better for everyone, including those on buses, or those who have to drive.

My challenge to everyone complaining about this is simple: what?s your solution? The status quo isn?t sustainable, not least with 10,000 or so people potentially dying young in London due to pollution, and an NHS which will collapse before too long unless people start become more physically active. If not such schemes, then what?

You might say, ?Ah, but it?s just this scheme I object to.? But there?s always opposition. And if people argue vehemently against every such change (eg also Camberwell Grove), then nothing gets every gets done. And, to repeat, the status quo isn?t going to stop kids from breathing toxic air, or make your trip to work any faster.

Disclosure: I live on CH, and so benefit from the change. And it?s great. Parents taking kids to school no longer need to actually stand in the road so kids can safely cross (some drivers, annoyed when the person in front stopped, would go the wrong way round the traffic island and speed past anyway). And I accept the signage could be better at DKH, and hope very much the traffic chaos faced by others on CH and nearby ends soon. But even if the change was on a neighbouring road and it was making traffic by me worse, I wouldn?t argue for it to stop. I?d argue for more action, not less.

Mini-rant over.

[rendelharris]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

What he said.

You're going to get torn to bits by the pro-car, "I should be allowed to drive whenever and wherever I want" lobby which dominates these threads, but you're spot on.

[first mate]

PeterW,

I think you make good points however as someone who does cycle part of the time I would say that the geography of ED is problematic in that we have two very steep hills either side. This is something of a block for those less physically able and needing to get to work. Even more so if you have to carry equipment around for your work. A flat Dutch landscape of the type I cycled in my youth makes a huge difference.

All that said you also referred to people less likely to walk and cycle when roads feel so perilous and feral and I agree but would observe this is not just about lunatic drivers but a sense of feeling safe in general. Walking or even cycling in the dark can feel unsafe full stop and this is an aspect that is not really being addressed, I feel.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> PeterW,

> I think you make good points however as someone

> who does cycle part of the time I would say that

> the geography of ED is problematic in that we have

> two very steep hills either side. This is

> something of a block for those less physically

> able and needing to get to work. Even more so if

> you have to carry equipment around for your work.

> A flat Dutch landscape of the type I cycled in my

> youth makes a huge difference.

eBikes are rapidly dropping in price, available on the cycle-to-work scheme, or it's easy to convert an extant bike to an eBike for around ?300. When I was very seriously ill some years ago, so that I could only cycle slowly along the flat and hills were impossible, I converted one of my bikes to an eBike and it was fabulous, made anything possible (I lived near the top of Denmark Hill at the time and it ate the slope). Not a panacea but well worth considering for those for whom the hills are too challenging. Kind of wish I'd kept mine, very good fun it was.

[first mate]

Yes, I have seriously considered these but then I also wonder about how safe to leave such things when one needs to! I do feel that feeling safe is a consideration, especially cycling at night.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Yes, I have seriously considered these but then I

> also wonder about how safe to leave such things

> when one needs to! I do feel that feeling safe is

> a consideration, especially cycling at night.

Yep, appreciate that though I do think that with reflective clobber and lights I might sometimes be safer at night than in the day. Batteries are the most valuable part of most eBikes, and nowadays they're about the size of a waterbottle and can be taken off in a second, don't know that without the battery they're much more vulnerable than standard bikes.

[wulfhound]

Feeling safe is certainly a consideration, and not one that should be dismissed. Having said that, the only incidence I know of people getting mugged for/on bikes is school kids, and roadie cyclists getting jacked for expensive and obviously valuable road bikes. In general a relatively fast moving middle aged person on an unremarkable bike doesn't ideally fit the bill of what thieves are looking for.. they don't have time for the usual "lend us a pound" routine.

Ebikes usually have detachable batteries, which, while heavy enough that you'd prefer not to carry one around all evening (two or three kilos) by and large render the bike not worth stealing when removed.

[Kosmo]

PeterW Wrote:

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

> I'm going to go against the tone of most posts

> here and try and argue why I think the Champion

> Hill scheme, while it has problems, is the right

> thing to do.

>

> To begin with, I think it's not ambitious enough ?

> it should be (as originally agreed in the

> consultation a few years ago), to make CH

> access-only in both directions, ie at the

> three-way junction it should be entirely blocked

> to motor vehicles. But I'd also say that it should

> be introduced as part of wider changes to the

> whole area, to make it less convenient to drive

> along smaller, residential streets. Individual,

> one-off schemes like this just risk pushing the

> same traffic onto other residential roads. Now I

> get why Southwark are limited in how much they can

> do at once ? it?s down to funding ? but it seems

> to me the point is not to argue *against*

> individual schemes but *in favour of* doing both

> these and more.

>

> Why? Because it's vital both that cars are kept,

> where possible, off residential streets, and more

> widely that measures are taken to make driving

> short distances less convenient, thus pushing

> people onto other modes of transport. Of course,

> some people need to use cars, vans etc, but more

> than a third of all car trips in London are less

> than 2km ? ie possible to walk for many, and can

> be done on a bike in about ten minutes. But people

> are less likely to walk ? and definitely won?t

> cycle ? when the roads feel so perilous and feral.

> Champion Hill is meant to be part of Quietway 7, a

> route aimed at slower, less-experienced riders.

> But before the scheme riding along it was

> terrible, especially the section with all the

> pinch points.

>

> Any why should we be seeking to make this change?

> Because the current situation is both

> unsustainable and a massive social injustice.

> Factors like the growth of Uber and Amazon mean

> roads are ever-more congested. Doing nothing isn?t

> an option. And private cars are a part of the

> problem. In Southwark, almost two-thirds of

> households don?t own a car, and those who do are

> disproportionately likely to be wealthier. So you

> have a situation where a richer minority is

> imposing huge costs ? noise, danger, pollution,

> congestion ? on everyone. Pollution outside

> schools is a massive problem in London (and

> disproportionately affects schools in poorer areas

> ? a common feature of traffic-related harm) but

> you?re not going to solve it by opposing every

> single scheme to reduce traffic. Instead, you need

> to argue for more of them. Most inner-London

> primary schools have small catchment areas, and

> the bulk of pupils could walk, cycle or scoot. The

> fact many don?t is often because they feel the

> roads are too perilous, given the number of cars ?

> that cycle needs to be broken. Eventually, as

> shorter car trips are replaced by people using

> buses, bikes, foot etc, it gets better for

> everyone, including those on buses, or those who

> have to drive.

>

> My challenge to everyone complaining about this is

> simple: what?s your solution? The status quo isn?t

> sustainable, not least with 10,000 or so people

> potentially dying young in London due to

> pollution, and an NHS which will collapse before

> too long unless people start become more

> physically active. If not such schemes, then

> what?

>

> You might say, ?Ah, but it?s just this scheme I

> object to.? But there?s always opposition. And if

> people argue vehemently against every such change

> (eg also Camberwell Grove), then nothing gets

> every gets done. And, to repeat, the status quo

> isn?t going to stop kids from breathing toxic air,

> or make your trip to work any faster.

>

> Disclosure: I live on CH, and so benefit from the

> change. And it?s great. Parents taking kids to

> school no longer need to actually stand in the

> road so kids can safely cross (some drivers,

> annoyed when the person in front stopped, would go

> the wrong way round the traffic island and speed

> past anyway). And I accept the signage could be

> better at DKH, and hope very much the traffic

> chaos faced by others on CH and nearby ends soon.

> But even if the change was on a neighbouring road

> and it was making traffic by me worse, I wouldn?t

> argue for it to stop. I?d argue for more action,

> not less.

>

> Mini-rant over.

Thank you for your honesty concerning where you live. I?m glad you got the opportunity to put the case forward for why the road should be closed. Other people who live in the local community weren?t so lucky. The first I ? and many others ? knew about it was once it was already closed.

Driving for some people isn?t a choice. Not everyone is part of some selfish environment destroying car club, speeding in their 4x4s. I?m a keen cyclist and would love to be able to cycle with my child to school but unfortunately he has a disability and so that isn?t an option.

Since this road has closed it has but between ten and thirty minutes onto my car journey. That?s me and a hundred other drivers sitting in traffic polluting the air. If you feel so inclined to investigate how it this is affecting your community further afield please take a short walk down to Melbourne Grove where much of the traffic that used to go down now Champion Hill now goes.

What a good idea to redirect the traffic so it goes past many of our local schools. Have a look at the traffic past Charter School or the Allen?s schools, then on into Herne Hill. I?ve never in my 20 years of living in this area seen traffic this bad, nor such frustrated driving.

The traffic on Dog Kennel Hill is gridlocked as cars do a u turn further down as there is no right turn at the lights. An accident waiting to happen as frustrated drivers try to find a space to pull into the traffic going in the opposite direction.

On top of that, the council has initiated this now when there are major road works scheduled on Denmark Hill until October this year.

Sorry for the long post, but given that the consultation closed before I was even aware it existed, this forum appears to be the only chance I?ve got to share my point of view, futile though this is.

[MelissaVF]

I do understand and agree with the sentiment of PeterW's message. However in isolation the initiative is fanciful. He says it should have been introduced as wider changes. It hasn't though - and perhaps as a result, perhaps regardless - the results of it are exactly the ones which the scheme is meant to address. If it is meant to get people to use main roads the no right turns out of Champion Hill and Grove Hill Road should have been lifted. Instead it is just kicking the can down to other residential roads. Also what about the residents on Grove Lane? Are they meant to (quite literally in terms of emissions) suck it up as they are on a more main road? Champion Hill is actually a fairly wide road that isn't difficult to drive down (certainly better than Quorn, Pytchley and Bromar where I now am forced if I want to go towards East Dulwich. If it is meant to address pollution - it isn't. Idling traffic now taking longer and clogging up the roads doesn't really do this especially given the location of Dog Kennel Hill. If it is meant to improve cycling - as I mentioned in earlier post I live on Champion Hill and cycle pretty much daily - this hasn't improved it. Also my mother who lives with us and is in her 70s with ankle issues can't exactly hop on a bike can she?!

I'm sure still the argument back would be 'but you have to do something' but this should not be the case when the net result is negative.

[first mate]

Quite machiavellian to create shorter term problems and pollution as a necessary step towards improving health.

The thing is, many do not believe health is the primary motivation, revenue is. There lies the rub. One might argue the means to the end is enough to cast doubt.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Quite machiavellian to create shorter term

> problems and pollution as a necessary step towards

> improving health.

>

> The thing is, many do not believe health is the

> primary motivation, revenue is. There lies the

> rub. One might argue the means to the end is

> enough to cast doubt.

What revenue is this scheme going to generate? I know someone mentioned a person driving through the cycle lane, but I seriously doubt that will happen often enough even to pay for the cost of the new street furniture.

If people are not going to willingly give up some of their car use, and it very much appears that they will not, what should we do? Just sit back and accept the status quo of 9,000 premature deaths a year in our city and children growing up mentally and physically impaired as a result of breathing in pollution?

[first mate]

I am sure you will disagree but I do not view this measure as discrete from all the other traffic management issues currently underway. By closing off certain roads you can increase the volume of traffic on others. A proportion of road users will be en route but others will be travelling with a view to parking somewhere. Increasing the demand for parking on roads or in areas where there was not an issue before. This along with all the other measures arguably increases the likelihood of demand for CPZ. In short having failed before S'wark want the job done this time and are throwing everything they have to ensuring the outcome they want.