Southwark Consultation on no entry - Denmark Hill/Champion Hill

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> The point is, if Grove Lane and Dog

> Kennel Hill have been suffering "gridlock" due to

> the CH closure, as some have claimed, how was I

> able to take photographs at the height of rush

> hour showing those roads completely empty?

> Where's the gridlock?

I don't know. In order to answer that we'd need to know what sort of journeys people typically make which require them to use Grove Lane/Champion Park, then backtrack those routes to see whether there was any incident (roadworks, accident etc.) on Monday morning which would have disrupted the traffic flows before drivers reached Grove Lane. That shouldn't be difficult to ascertain from all the research and modelling studies that Southwark Council would have done as part of their assessment of what would likely happen to traffic flows when they closed Champion Hill.*

For what it's worth, the traffic this morning on Grove Lane was backed up all the way to the crossroads at the top of DKH (around 8:45). I was on a bus which got held up for about 10 minutes before it could get into the bus lane on Champion Park. Same was true yesterday. There are plenty of recent datapoints from multiple people on here to suggest that this is typical of the morning rush since Champion Hill was closed, and that for whatever reason Monday morning was an anomaly.

* Yes, I know, of course Southwark won't have done any of this. But they should have done.

[spider69]

My wife used the above route you were talking about on Monday and came home and said where has all the traffic gone.

Could not believe how empty all the roads were.

[sdrs]

This morning at 8.30 am the traffic was jammed solid down south Grove Lane up to the Champion Hill junction and at about 9.30 there was a very bad accident ( two cars badly damaged and an ambulance) at the junction of Grove Lane and Champion Hill. The accident was surely caused by the traffic congestion etc.

[rendelharris]

sdrs Wrote:

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

> This morning at 8.30 am the traffic was jammed

> solid down south Grove Lane up to the Champion

> Hill junction and at about 9.30 there was a very

> bad accident ( two cars badly damaged and an

> ambulance) at the junction of Grove Lane and

> Champion Hill. The accident was surely caused by

> the traffic congestion etc.

That's a rather large assumption, isn't it? Surely traffic congestion mitigates the chances of serious accidents by reducing speeds?

[rendelharris]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> My wife used the above route you were talking

> about on Monday and came home and said where has

> all the traffic gone.

>

> Could not believe how empty all the roads were.

I'm happy to accept it as an anomaly - irritatingly I have to make rather more trips to hospital than I would like so I'll report back when I next stroll up there. It is at least possible that the predicted recalibration of traffic flow is starting to occur though, no? I can certainly say with confidence that, making a coffee/paper run on my bike most mornings to Sainsbury's (freelancers like to get some form of human contact) the predicted horrendous traffic flow through Bromar/Quorn/Pytchley etc simply isn't happening, it's the same as it's always been in the three years I've lived on an adjoining road, which is to say minimal, and the traffic on Malfort/Grove Hill Roads is significantly reduced as nobody's heading for the Champion Hill ratrun now.

[sdrs]

5 Buses queueing on Grove Lane at 8.30 this morning to get round the corner onto Champion Park and Denmark Hill. A lot of commuters were getting off a stop early (Champion Grove stop) and running the rest of the way to the station.

[Froglander]

sdrs Wrote:

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

> This morning at 8.30 am the traffic was jammed

> solid down south Grove Lane up to the Champion

> Hill junction and at about 9.30 there was a very

> bad accident ( two cars badly damaged and an

> ambulance) at the junction of Grove Lane and

> Champion Hill. The accident was surely caused by

> the traffic congestion etc.

Heard radio reports about another accident today, same area.

[sdrs]

Yes. It was here (see photo, taken shortly after) on the corner of Grove Lane and Champion Park, I heard it involved a motorbike and an ambulance. Yesterday?s serious accident on the Grove Hill Rd/Grove Lane/Champion Hill junction, by DKH School, involved two cars (one of which was a write-off) and an ambulance.

[rendelharris]

Hope everyone involved not too seriously hurt. Given that this morning's delays were the result of accidents (and there have always been accidents, as one would expect on a busy A road) they're irrelevant to the question of the CH closure, aren't they? Still can't see why accidents were "surely" caused by congestion (worth remembering the words of my motorcycle instructor: "What's the biggest cause of accidents, black ice, bad road design, poor visibility? No, it's people.").

[sdrs]

Are you implying that residents of A-roads should expect serious road accidents as a matter of course? I?m really shocked by your comments, with their implied disregard for the residents of these roads. We live on an A toad so should be content with sky high pollution and a soaring accident rate? This scheme rests on a spurious distinction between ??main?? and ??residential?? roads. Grove Lane and Dog Kennel Hil are both! As are so many in London. If you?re not bothered about residents, what about the pupils of the 3 primary schools who use this particular A-road to walk to school or the thousands of pedestrians who use it to walk to local bus stops, stations and hospitals in morning rush hour? One of the two accidents that occurred this week - as if by coincidence on the very stretch of road currently taking most of the displaced traffic from Champion Hill - was at the the junction adjoining Dog Kennel Hill School. The congestion resulting from the Champion Hill closure is causing pollution and road rage of a kind I have never seen in 22 years of living on Grove Lane - leading drivers to perform ill-judged and dangerous driving manoeuvres, including on Champion Park where the accident occurred this morning. Here, motorists are overtaking where they shouldn?t and performing U-turns once they come around the bend and see the traffic not moving. However this morning?s accident was not in any way responsible for the delays. The photo I posted was taken at 8am by which time as you can see it was completely out of the path of any traffic. The photo of the buses queuing on Grove Lane was taken at 8.25am. The delays are caused by the trial closure of Champion Hill to Denmark Hill. I have never before this trial seen bus passengers jumping off 40/176/185 buses en masse on Grove Lane (at Champion Grove stop) and running to Denmark Hill because they know they?re not going to make it to the station in time otherwise.

[rendelharris]

sdrs Wrote:

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

> Are you seriously implying that residents of

> A-roads should expect serious road accidents as a

> matter of course? I?m really shocked by your

> comments, with their implied disregard for the

> residents of these roads. We live on an A toad so

> should be content with sky high pollution and a

> soaring accident rate?

I'm not implying anything of the sort as you well know, you're inferring it in an extremely hysterical manner because I don't agree with you about the Champion Hill closure, which is, frankly, cheap.

[Penguin68]

Given that this morning's delays were the result of accidents (and there have always been accidents, as one would expect on a busy A road) they're irrelevant to the question of the CH closure, aren't they?

Actually (and ignoring the spat above) no. The more roads are permanently closed or restricted, the fewer 'alternative' routes exist (for motorists, public conveyances or emergency vehicles) in the case of accident, or, more frequently around here, road closures following infrastructure failure. Every road closed is an 'in emergency' route blocked off. Which means that problems will inevitably be exacerbated. As a local I used to know many routes which allowed me to 'get through' incidents - these are fast disappearing. That can surely be to no one's benefit. I am generally always against reducing flexibility.

[Abe_froeman]

What all of these photos show is that absolutely no one has been encouraged to walk or cycle. Not one pedestrian or cyclist in all the pictures!

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> What all of these photos show is that absolutely

> no one has been encouraged to walk or cycle. Not

> one pedestrian or cyclist in all the pictures!

Clearly cyclists won't be going along DKH/Grove Lane/Champion Park when they can use the newly controlled Champion Hill, so the fact that there are no cyclists in the pictures proves nothing.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Actually (and ignoring the spat above) no. The

> more roads are permanently closed or restricted,

> the fewer 'alternative' routes exist (for

> motorists, public conveyances or emergency

> vehicles) in the case of accident, or, more

> frequently around here, road closures following

> infrastructure failure. Every road closed is an

> 'in emergency' route blocked off. Which means that

> problems will inevitably be exacerbated. As a

> local I used to know many routes which allowed me

> to 'get through' incidents - these are fast

> disappearing. That can surely be to no one's

> benefit. I am generally always against reducing

> flexibility.

So by that argument no road should ever be subject to control measures to make it healthier/safer/more pleasant, everywhere should just remain a motorist free-for-all?

[Penguin68]

...and a cyclists and emergency vehicles and if necessary busses free for all - yes.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> ...and a cyclists and emergency vehicles and if

> necessary busses free for all - yes.

So, just to get this straight, Penguin (and with the caveat that I generally respect your posts and think you speak a great deal of good sense), you believe that there should be absolutely no measures to control car use in residential areas? That's going to create (is creating/has created) a very, very unpleasant (and for many, fatal) environment for all. You surely can't conflate buses, first responders and cyclists being allowed to use all roads with allowing private motorists to do the same?

[sdrs]

Does anyone have a photo of the serious accident that occurred on Wednesday morning at the junction of Champion Hill/Grove Lane/Grove Hill Rd that they could post or DM me?

[Penguin68]

you believe that there should be absolutely no measures to control car use in residential areas? - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction, ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to either safety or air quality. However removing parking spaces and hence potentially increasing (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to dangers. Just as an example.

Road closures such as this simply displace traffic to other roads, often thereby actually increasing traffic of those roads and increasing pollution and possibly decreasing road safety on those roads. Fine for those living in the newly 'protected' roads, not so for others.

So my plea for all roads which are actually passable to be used is all about spreading discomfort which may actually decrease 'per household' dangers and pollution. Of course you can plot to make your household particularly safe and pollution free, but only at the expense of others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than 'my gain'.

[Abe_froeman]

Road closures and CPZs also put neighbours in conflict with each other.

[first mate]

Very well put Penguin.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> you believe that there should be absolutely no

> measures to control car use in residential areas?

> - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction,

> ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid

> and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to

> either safety or air quality. However removing

> parking spaces and hence potentially increasing

> (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to

> dangers. Just as an example.

>

> Road closures such as this simply displace traffic

> to other roads, often thereby actually increasing

> traffic of those roads and increasing pollution

> and possibly decreasing road safety on those

> roads. Fine for those living in the newly

> 'protected' roads, not so for others.

>

> So my plea for all roads which are actually

> passable to be used is all about spreading

> discomfort which may actually decrease 'per

> household' dangers and pollution. Of course you

> can plot to make your household particularly safe

> and pollution free, but only at the expense of

> others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than

> 'my gain'.

[Passiflora]

Interesting letter posted in the SLP today from somebody who lives in Ruskin Park House, Champion Hill.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> you believe that there should be absolutely no

> measures to control car use in residential areas?

> - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction,

> ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid

> and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to

> either safety or air quality. However removing

> parking spaces and hence potentially increasing

> (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to

> dangers. Just as an example.

>

> Road closures such as this simply displace traffic

> to other roads, often thereby actually increasing

> traffic of those roads and increasing pollution

> and possibly decreasing road safety on those

> roads. Fine for those living in the newly

> 'protected' roads, not so for others.

>

> So my plea for all roads which are actually

> passable to be used is all about spreading

> discomfort which may actually decrease 'per

> household' dangers and pollution. Of course you

> can plot to make your household particularly safe

> and pollution free, but only at the expense of

> others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than

> 'my gain'.

This represents a fundamental difference in approach: you seem to regard car use as something inevitable, essentially an unavoidable part of the human condition, and so while its huge negative effects must be mitigated, car usage must be facilitated as much as possible. I and others would argue that we have only had mass motor vehicle ownership for around fifty years or so, in which time we have surrendered our public spaces and air quality to them to an insane degree. To enjoy a decent quality of life, car use will have to be restricted. All over the world numerous initiatives to restrict car use, from single street closures to banning cars entirely from city centres, are enjoying considerable success. Sooner or later we are going to have to take the decision as a society to attempt to improve our environment or simply accept the mass premature deaths and illness being inflicted upon the population at present.

There's a great line in the Half Man Half Biscuit song "Breaking News", which concerns a number of people arrested for "annoying the nation". Amongst those held are "People who complain to the council about litter, never stopping to think it is people who drop litter, not the council." It amazes me that so many people on here complain vociferously about congestion and pollution, blaming car-restriction measures, never stopping to think it is cars that cause congestion and pollution. Yes, we know that a number of people have to use cars, but I wonder how many, in reality, of those fuming in their cars on Champion Park, or fuming on here, are really aggravated by the fact that their short, unnecessary journeys are being inconvenienced?

[spider69]

.

[spider69]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Interesting letter posted in the SLP today from

> somebody who lives in Ruskin Park House, Champion

> Hill.

Can anyone post this letter on the forum