Southwark Consultation on no entry - Denmark Hill/Champion Hill

[DuncanW]

Well said, James

[betternowthanthen]

We have to get more people walking and cycling and not driving. Numerous reasons for this including - global warming, child obesity, health, economics, reducing oil dependence...We have a climate change crisis and should be acting accordingly.

Single biggest reasons people say they don't cycle or allow their children to cycle is fear / safety.

This measure is designed to make Champion Hill feel safer for people to cycle, and indeed let their children walk and cycle to school unescorted.

Clearly traffic has been reduced on Champion Hill. The queuing on Champion Park appears to have broadly returned to normal - I see it most days at some point 6-8 am and 5-7pm.

I think many more such measures are required to really transform our roads to feel sufficiently safe for the many people and families we need to make walking and cycling their normal way of getting around locally and make the step improvements in fighting climate change, reducing fuel, improving health, etc. East Dulwich, London, UK and world desperately need.

Ostrich like behaviour in rejecting changes to fight climate change should not be socially acceptable - unless proposing better alternatives to fight climate change.

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

Regards [email protected]

former Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward (2006-2018)

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

Closing the road does not reduce pollution, only increases it, people walk yes well done, closing the road won't make me walk, because it's totally inconvenient for my tool carrying purpose, kids, ect.

Closing the road will carry the dangers of driving onto the other roads, so accidents won't be less but more on the other routes needed to use due to the closure.

people drive along that road....because they have to.

Ever tried going to work in a suit, raining, when on foot, raining, or on a bike, raining, is that really going to be practical all the times, don't think this will make people walk more often,

obese children are obese for other reasons, not because this road is more safe for walking!

Climate change crisis is the world's job to do as well as ours, closing this road is not even a drop in the ocean.

I hope you are monitoring the traffic your self on the other roads that are now more dangerous as champion hill remains closed, more traffic on already busy roads is what you think is far better? with the added pollution?

Can't wait to pollute the roads more than needed again, and your in favor of that it appears, and cars will increase in numbers that are getting channeled into congested roads unnecessary. Sure you'll agree also.

happy driving everybody. :)

[sally buying]

Go on to the Southwark web site and and click on

Champion Hill ? ?No entry? trial? Summary of informal consultation and next steps click on to this and see the photo

Southwark has used and see how Champion Hill is for most of the day outside of the brief early morning rush hour.

There was never any need to close it.

If people cannot feel safe with this there has to be a problem.

[Earl Aelfheah]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> We have to get more people walking and cycling and

> not driving. Numerous reasons for this including -

> global warming, child obesity, health, economics,

> reducing oil dependence...We have a climate change

> crisis and should be acting accordingly.

Walking and cycling are not always alternatives to driving (you probably wouldn't walk to Brighton for example) and many people would not want to cycle with their kids to into central London. I'm all in favour of getting people to walk and cycle more, but there need to be real alternatives to the car, ideally frequent, fast, reliable public transport.

Southwark put a lot of effort into making driving more expensive, slower and less convenient. But this just make peoples lives more difficult, it rarely moves them out of their cars. This cannot be the only lever you pull.

[Earl Aelfheah]

These things would do more to encourage people locally to get out of their cars more often:

1. Correcting the absence of the London wide cycle hire scheme (missing only from SE London)

2. Correcting the absence of the London wide cycle superhighway scheme (missing only from SE London)

3. Correcting the absence of the London wide underground network (missing only from SE London)

4. Secure Bike Parking at the nearest high frequency train services (Brixton Tube) - as exists at at Finsbury Park

5. Innovative schemes such as 'last mile' options, for example, electric scooter hire

6. Significant pedestrianisation

Instead we get:

1. Yellow lines

2. Speed bumps

3. Parking charges

4. Platitudes

[first mate]

If you have serious caring responsibilities for relatives living outside of town you need a car. Public transport is not reliable enough for emergencies, nor are zip cars. Cycling obviously a non- starter. This is a reality of modern life where we no longer live in communities made up of extended families. Agree with cycling for short journeys when possible but that option is limited in many ways.

Rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > We have to get more people walking and cycling

> and

> > not driving. Numerous reasons for this including

> -

> > global warming, child obesity, health,

> economics,

> > reducing oil dependence...We have a climate

> change

> > crisis and should be acting accordingly.

>

> Walking and cycling are not always alternatives to

> driving (you probably wouldn't walk to Brighton

> for example) and many people would not want to

> cycle with their kids to into central London. I'm

> all in favour of getting people to walk and cycle

> more, but there need to be real alternatives to

> the car, ideally frequent, fast, reliable public

> transport.

>

> Southwark put a lot of effort into making driving

> more expensive, slower and less convenient. But

> this just make peoples lives more difficult, it

> rarely moves them out of their cars. This cannot

> be the only lever you pull.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@first mate - I agree. People will sometimes need to use a car and there is nothing wrong with that. Some journeys could be done by bike and by foot, but for most people this only relates to some short journeys. Public transport is the other area where public policy could reduce a lot of medium distance journeys. Southwark's only strategy is to make driving more expensive, slower and less convenient and think that this will magically cut pollution and make people healthier.

[Penguin68]

Agree with cycling for short journeys when possible - I know you add 'when possible' but NB there are people who are old, people with poor sight, people with other motor disabilities, people who would have to cycle through quite substantial hills in the old borough of Camberwell often with substantial baggage of one sort or another - people who rely on powered transport not on 2 wheels. I suspect quite a few journeys could not, reasonably, be completed by cycle. By making life possible only for cyclists (or walkers) - clearly the aim with no nod towards even basic reliable public transport - many rely on buses when the roads are constantly blocked by different works - Southwark is excluding increasing numbers from participating in life outside the house. I use public transport a lot, but I have to drive to get on it in the first place (not even a bus goes to my 'best/ most useful' orange line station from where I am, and it's a hilly 20-25 minute walk for me). Not a good or relaxing start to an evening out.

[first mate]

Penguin68 I do sympathise with eveything you say and to those that harp on about pollution and health as the raison d'etre for all this (with good reason I might add) they need to be absolutely crystal clear S'warks current clutch of measures will have a significant positive impact in this respect, because the rate of change is also going to cause a lot of stress to many, and stress is also a killer.

I also hope we are not handed out advice along the lines that unless we can live and operate purely locally we should all move and live elsewhere.

[rupert james]

When the ULEZ comes in, Inner London and the congestion is acceptable but many people will be left stranded when the crazy North and South Zones take effect in 2021.

Many people will be left housebound for the reasons above and also they will not be able to replace perfectly good vehicles as they will not have the money. Many are OAP's.

Like Penguin68 I am in that position also will find it very difficult to connect with public transport.

Having to get rid of a car that for all intents and purpose is brand new. My 2000 miles a year is not here or there

Still Khan has managed to rid the underground of underwear adverts and fast food adverts which in his eyes is a major victory.

Perhaps those calling for these measures should remember they to will get old.

[James Barber]

Lots of really good points about how cars can be crucial for some people for a proportion of their essential journeys. But 100% of current car use doesn't fall meet this criteria. And I would use a car for some of the essential car use journeys described by others.

For other journeys, where someone is able, we must encourage more active travel. WE should take inspiration from children such as Greta Thurnberg.

NB. I am a Champion Hill resident and the changes are also contentious for residents on Champion Hill. All our vehicle journeys have been changed by this partial closure.

[wulfhound]

Regarding the ULEZ - to suggest that anybody will be rendered housebound by having to pay ?10 for a trip out in the car is hyperbole. That's less than the daily Oyster cap, less than the petrol to Brighton and back, less than a one-way trip in an Uber.

Maybe some will have to limit the number of journeys they make, perhaps one or two trips per week instead of four - but compared against the seriousness of the air quality issue (which has caused life-limiting and, in at least one widely-reported case, fatal illness to kids), I don't think that's disproportionate.

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Perhaps those calling for these measures should

> remember they to will get old.

Perhaps those opposing these measures should remember that 9,000 Londoners a year won't have the chance to get as old as they should because they'll die prematurely as a result of pollution. Ella Kissi-Debrah won't grow old; she lived on the South Circular at a time when pollution levels consistently breached legal limits. Having not been born with asthma, she developed a severe form of the condition and suffered three years of terrible attacks, seizures and hospitalisation before dying in agony in February 2013. She was nine years old.

Experts have agreed that Ella's pattern of attacks followed those of spikes in air pollution, and that there is a "real prospect that without unlawful levels of air pollution, Ella would not have died".

[uncleglen]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> And the freedom of children to grow up without

> physical and cognitive impairment? The freedom of

> people to live out their natural span without, as

> happens to 9,000 people in London every year,

> having it cut short by pollution? The freedom of

> people to walk, cycle, play and socialise outside

> their own homes without having their lives

> endangered?

>

> Yes, people have had this "freedom" for fifty

> years - one would have thought that you, who's

> always banging on about how much better things

> were in the old days, would recognise that as a

> society we have become increasingly selfish,

> insular, obese and aggressive, and cars have a lot

> to do with that.

>

> Oh, and total tax revenue from fuel duty amounts

> to approximately ?27BN per year out of total tax

> revenues of around ?600BN, so you're as accurate

> as ever - one doubts a drop in revenue of 4% or so

> will collapse the economy, and that's before you

> even start to factor in stopping new road

> projects, the savings to the NHS (not having to

> deal with so many accident victims, fewer

> breathing problems, fitter population etc etc) and

> so forth.

>

> The experiment in mass car ownership has

> demonstrably and disastrously failed. It hasn't

> given us freedom, it's imprisoned many in their

> own homes, and most others are imprisoned in their

> tin boxes, sitting in traffic jams breathing in

> poison from the vehicle in front whilst telling

> themselves this is freedom. Madness

Your comment is full of contradictions- I was commenting generally on various peoples' attitudes to having a car....but as usual rh you have to get personal- must be all that lead that was in the petrol when you were growing up!

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

Your comment is full of contradictions- I was

> commenting generally on various peoples' attitudes

> to having a car....

You specifically stated why you got a car and said that it would be impossible to take away people's "freedom." You then made a stupid assertion about the economy being reliant on fuel duty. I know you lie a fair bit but lying about your own post is a new one. Nothing in my post was personal to you apart from noting that as you think everything was better in the old days you should recognise the damage mass car ownership has done to society. Do you start early in half term for old time's sake?

[rupert james]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> Go on to the Southwark web site and and click on

>

> Champion Hill ? ?No entry? trial? Summary of

> informal consultation and next steps click on to

> this and see the photo

>

> Southwark has used and see how Champion Hill is

> for most of the day outside of the brief early

> morning rush hour.

>

> There was never any need to close it.

>

> If people cannot feel safe with this there has to

> be a problem.

Following your message I looked at the Southwark Photo and the attached was the photo Southwark used.

Can someone tell me where the problem arises to close Champion Hill. Taken 2018 after the consultation

The closure has nothing to do with safety but Southwark's wish to get motor cars off the road.

As old residents can confirm Champion Hill has never been a problem.

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Following your message I looked at the Southwark

> Photo and the attached was the photo Southwark

> used.

>

> Can someone tell me where the problem arises to

> close Champion Hill. Taken 2018 after the

> consultation

As previously noted by me on this thread (as you know because you responded), that photograph was taken at 11.30AM (it's also on the section of Champion Hill where traffic doesn't bottleneck and backup, that occurs on the perpendicular section running towards Denmark Hill). If I go out at 11.30AM tomorrow and take you a picture of Champion Park with very little traffic backup (as there isn't at that time) will you accept it as evidence that there isn't a problem with the new setup?

[rupert james]

There was never any need to close champion Hill as the brief traffic early morning leaves the road clear.

The problems caused by the closure are far reaching by the diversions that have to be made.

There is a problem with the new set up and quite frankly your views on cars and cycling is so well documented it is pointless to have any conversation.

What is the saying a picture is worth a thousand words.

The picture listed shows that there is no problem.

[rendelharris]

Jesus wept. A picture taken at 11.30AM shows that there is no problem at rush hour? If that's what you believe then it certainly is "pointless to have any conversation" - and yet you do persist, don't you? The closure has happened, it's already evident that the teething problems, which were inevitable until drivers decided on alternatives (or, heaven forfend, realised that they could use alternative modes of transport), are being sorted out and traffic levels are reverting to the status quo ante.

"As old residents can confirm Champion Hill has never been a problem." As someone who lived and worked in a flat looking out directly over the Champion Hill/Denmark Hill junction for ten years, I can assure you that there was a problem. You may be an "old resident" - but you don't actually live on Champion Hill, do you? I may not have your seniority as a resident, but having lived in the area since 1997 I have a reasonable take on its problems.

[Passiflora]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> There was never any need to close champion Hill as

> the brief traffic early morning leaves the road

> clear.

>

> The problems caused by the closure are far

> reaching by the diversions that have to be made.

>

> There is a problem with the new set up and quite

> frankly your views on cars and cycling is so well

> documented it is pointless to have any

> conversation.

>

> What is the saying a picture is worth a thousand

> words.

>

> The picture listed shows that there is no problem.

Totally agree with you Rupert. There was never any need to close this road but Southwark seem to have gone ahead and suddenly installed cameras and blocked off roads on the right turn into the student halls. Not a good idea in general for anyone living nearby and certainly not for the students and would be students living in the halls I would think.

Just seems a very strange decision. Can only think it has something to do with the cyclist lanes/routes around that area i.e. Greendale, Bessemer Grange Primary School that Southwark seem intent on putting in place.

[rendelharris]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Just seems a very strange decision. Can only think

> it has something to do with the cyclist

> lanes/routes around that area i.e. Greendale,

> Bessemer Grange Primary School that Southwark seem

> intent on putting in place.

Isn't it just terrible that the council is trying to encourage people to cycle and stop the pollution that, literally, kills children? Down with this sort of thing!

Would you mind having a look at this and thinking about whether your right to drive wherever and whenever you like is worth more than a child's life? Thanks. https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/feb/15/london-air-pollution-death-ella-kissi-debrah-podcast

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> The closure has happened, it's already

> evident that the teething problems, which were

> inevitable until drivers decided on alternatives

> (or, heaven forfend, realised that they could use

> alternative modes of transport), are being sorted

> out and traffic levels are reverting to the status

> quo ante.

Or, it could be that traffic levels are much lighter due to it being half term and the chaos will resume on Monday morning. Let's wait and see.

[sdrs]

I live on one of the roads onto which the traffic has been displaced by this scheme and have two school age children, I have serious concerns about the impacts of this road closure and it is facile to dismiss anyone who doesn?t support it as espousing a mindless belief that the motor car is king. The simple fact is that many more residents, bus users and pedestrians (including schoolchildren)will be harmed by the scheme than will benefit from it. As someone put it in a previous post, this no entry trial is ?nimbyism at its finest? - one road which was already safer and healthier than most being made virtually a private road at the cost of many other roads and most worryingly at the cost of air quality on a major walking route to three local primary schools (Dog Kennel Hill, Goose Green and Lyndhurst School). When cars sit gridlocked like this, all the way from Champion Hill to Denmark Hill, on a weekday morning, how many people are breathing in the fumes? How many staff and patients are now delayed on their way to Kings College Hospital?

[spider69]

Cannot get Rupert James picture up. Which show the true picture.

Decided after writing do not have the strength to reply to I know what will 100% be coming.

After a brief flurry in the morning the road is as shown. Its only the morning as coming on the homeward leg why would any go up Champion Hill when you cannot turn right at DKH. You keep to the main road.

Does Southwark know where the traffic goes at the bottom of Champion Hill. Herne Hill of Camberwell?

As has been pointed out its done and will stay done. Screw residents.

[mrwb]

sdrs Wrote:

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

> I live on one of the roads onto which the traffic

> has been displaced by this scheme and have two

> school age children, I have serious concerns about

> the impacts of this road closure and it is facile

> to dismiss anyone who doesn?t support it as

> espousing a mindless belief that the motor car is

> king. The simple fact is that many more residents,

> bus users and pedestrians (including

> schoolchildren)will be harmed by the scheme than

> will benefit from it. As someone put it in a

> previous post, this no entry trial is ?nimbyism at

> its finest? - one road which was already safer and

> healthier than most being made virtually a

> private road at the cost of many other roads and

> most worryingly at the cost of air quality on a

> major walking route to three local primary schools

> (Dog Kennel Hill, Goose Green and Lyndhurst

> School). When cars sit gridlocked like this, all

> the way from Champion Hill to Denmark Hill, on a

> weekday morning, how many people are breathing in

> the fumes? How many staff and patients are now

> delayed on their way to Kings College Hospital?

Agree with this. Closing this road just displacing cars elsewhere and creating more pollution due to extra idling in traffic jams.

What is the point of it? Southwark need to waste more money on something?