Southwark council considering 20mph limit across whole borough

[DJKillaQueen]

And that's the issue isn't it fox. No one has an issue with installing measures in places where accidents have regularly happened, or where a design aspect of the road makes accidents more likely. None of the data supports the need for a blanket 20mpr limit.

[Pugwash]

Try talking to people in CP Rd who complained for many years at the speed cars were travelling over the humps in their road. It was estimated at between 40 - 50 mph starting from the LL end

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL...well those complaining ferotiously about anything often exaggerate. The cars were probably doing 30.

[Coops46]

You misuderstand me, by restricting access, I mean restrict through traffic, so closing off the ends of side streets like the bottom of Upland Rd. This is a common Dutch technique, and means that only cars that are meant to be there drive through specific areas, otherwise they take the long way round, on the main road.

This means residential roads are quieter, but same access for residents and people using that area. And also means main roads are designed specifically for the amount of traffic it needs.

By categorising roads through these uses, you can design to make things safer and more pleasant for everyone.

And it's common knowledge that traffic doesn't displace like a liquid, more like a gas. The longer routes encourage people to travel differently, for example the Olympics, and the reduced amount of traffic in zone 1.

And I think the government SHOULD obsess over this - the positives of changing the roads to a Dutch style hold more improvements than you think. People that can't afford a car need to use public transport, people that can't afford public transport can walk or cycle to their jobs. By making the last two more inviting, you can reduce transport poverty and allow everyone to get to where they'd like, how they wish.

Please don't think I'm a raving old crone either with these suggestions, I'm a 22 year old design grad...

[????]

I support it, mainly 'cos I have young kids who aren't that capable of crossing roads responibly consistently.

But less personally and more factually

From my speed awareness course I seem to remember there is a huge shift in survival rates with pedestrian car accidents between 20mph and 30mph like most survive at 20, most die at 30 type figures.

Plus idiot drivers tend to creep a few MPH above the speed limit so I'd raher idiots drove at 25mph than 35 mph.

All simple stuff.

[EDdownunder]

I support it too, although if practicable I would prefer the main roads to remain at 30mph.

Our street doesn't have speed bumps and links lordship lane and crystal palace road and many drivers don't seem to care that its residential street and therefore has an increased risk of children (or adults) stepping onto the road. They just want to go as quick as they can to save a few precious seconds.

If it forces drivers back onto the main roads then that is fine by me even if it adds to the congestion.

Good on you Coops for sticking to your guns.

[intexasatthe moment]

Aren't all roads round here - main and other - residential ?

[DJKillaQueen]

But coops, we don't have a reliable and affordable transport system and we are never going to. Go out of London and things are far worse. All the transport networks require millions (if not billions) of pounds of investment over the coming decades just to repair the damage of age. Passengers are going to pay for that through increased fares, and through taxes (paying for government subsidies).

Also, London can not be compared to anywhere in Holland, as Holland has no city anywhere near as big or densely populated as London. Amsterdam is the largest city but only has a population of 741,000. London has a population of just over eight million! I've been to Holland and can see exactly why the transport planning they have works, and why it'll not work here.

[ratty]

Rarely get over 20 anyway. Would probably help the flow of traffic, and just thin of the buzz as soon as you got to Lambeth and could put your foot in the tank!!! I'm in!

[first mate]

But even if the whole borough is reduced to 20mph it won't stop those who routinely exceed 30mph- what precisely will be different? If they can get away with it now they will do so in future. There a are number of kids I see who race up and down roads, flying over the speed humps as they go...how will this affect them? They keep doing it so either never get caught or have bottomless pockets.

I was driving in central London last night and it was a nightmare. There is a proliferation of street signs, road markings, cameras.... all utterly confusing and still drivers were speeding all over the place. As for the lunatic cyclists, all dressed in invisible black, weaving in and out of cars and their blind spots just as fast as they could. I saw one cyclist, clearly at fault, narrowly avoid getting hit.

[Coops46]

DJKillaQueen, I understand your point but New York, Paris, Tokyo... These are megacities improving road conditions in precisely this way - by restricting car usage and focusing on getting as many people through junctions, not cars.

When we used to look at junctions, we asked, "how many cars can we get through here an hour", this lead to abominations like Vauxhall gyratory, and this isn't a liveable situation. Now, we are beginning to ask, "how many people can we get through here an hour". By changing this mindset, you can vastly improve the road system for EVERYONE.

At points like Waterloo roundabout, people on bicycles represent 25% of thoroughfare through the junction, and on Blackfriars bridge, bicycles outnumber cars in rush hour. And this is just with a modal share of 2% commuting by bicycle.

Taking space from the car to build segregated cycle ways actually means reduced journey times for the car! Everyone is a winner.

And one last thought, on the talk of money. Hackney council trialled closing through roads on residential streets, and made them permanent as the road now had CHILDREN PLAYING on it! This is the ultimate praise for a safe street. It also meant the road was quieter, people were happier, and house values went up on the street. Win, Win, Win.

When the health benefits, time saved and reduction in congestion and car crashes are taken into account, a nation can like Denmark profits 13p for every KM cycled, where as for every KM driven by car, society makes a net LOSS of 8p.

[richard tudor]

Coops46 Wrote:

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

> DJKillaQueen, I understand your point but New

> York, Paris, Tokyo... These are megacities

> improving road conditions in precisely this way -

> by restricting car usage and focusing on getting

> as many people through junctions, not cars.

>

> When we used to look at junctions, we asked, "how

> many cars can we get through here an hour", this

> lead to abominations like Vauxhall gyratory, and

> this isn't a liveable situation. Now, we are

> beginning to ask, "how many people can we get

> through here an hour". By changing this mindset,

> you can vastly improve the road system for

> EVERYONE.

>

> At points like Waterloo roundabout, people on

> bicycles represent 25% of thoroughfare through the

> junction, and on Blackfriars bridge, bicycles

> outnumber cars in rush hour. And this is just with

> a modal share of 2% commuting by bicycle.

>

> Taking space from the car to build segregated

> cycle ways actually means reduced journey times

> for the car! Everyone is a winner.

>

> And one last thought, on the talk of money.

> Hackney council trialled closing through roads on

> residential streets, and made them permanent as

> the road now had CHILDREN PLAYING on it! This is

> the ultimate praise for a safe street. It also

> meant the road was quieter, people were happier,

> and house values went up on the street. Win, Win,

> Win.

>

> When the health benefits, time saved and reduction

> in congestion and car crashes are taken into

> account, a nation can like Denmark profits 13p for

> every KM cycled, where as for every KM driven by

> car, society makes a net LOSS of 8p.

Have you ever worked on and completed any road systems in any city town or village. It would be interesting to see the practical result apart from the usual outpouring of statistics.

[Coops46]

I've just finished studying this, and it's worse that these statistics are proven, and the Gov moves at a snails pace on acting upon it.

If you'd like to see how Hackney improved from this, Councillor Feryal Demirci of Hackney Borough Council speaks about it in this video taken from a conference a month or so ago:

I'd welcomely speak with anyone about the benefits of this in person, and take them on a cycle to show them places around the city that work well in this respect.

[first mate]

Did the success of the Hackney scheme depend on residential streets being closed off? I don't think Southwark are advocating this are they?

[DJKillaQueen]

Studying something is not the same as seeing the real impact for yourself. Plus you are not comparing like for like, which undermines you argument a little.

New York has still has the same traffic problems as us. Take a drive through it and you'll see that for yourself. New York is also an interesting case when cited, because it's only in Manhatten and immediate surrounding Islands where networks are improved. New York's suburbs are as neglected as anywere else (where the focus has been on making public transport safer rather than better linking).

Paris is also a city I know very well. It has an extremely good, mordern, reliable, properly staffed and cheap transport system, heavily subsidised by government. All things London doesn't and never will have. It is also a city of two worlds. The affluent centre (where people truly have little need for cars), and the suburbs, (where car ownership is higher).

Tokyo I've never been to so can't comment.

I entirely agree though that some major junctions can be better managed. Even just something like light phasing has been a hotbed of debate for decades....accusations that TFL are not putting smooth traffic flow before other things for example. But introducing 20mpr blanket speed limits will do nothing to address those problems at major junctions for two reasons.

1/ Speed limit changes do nothing to change flow or density of traffic. Most vehicles approach junctions a speeds lower than 20mpr anyway.

2/ TFL control all A and most B roads in London.

To suggest building seprated cycle lanes will reduce travel times for cars is nonsense. That is like saying that cyclists are what slow traffic flow, when actually, it is congestion and poor congestion management that impacts on traffic flow. Seperated cycle lanes do of course massively improve the safety of cyclists (and I'm for them for that reason). The only places these can be feasible though are on major roads, but I think London has enough of them to provide a good network.

Interestingly, in central Paris you will find the bus lanes are seperated by a kerb from the main road. This is soemthing that works very well for cycling in Paris and would be relatively cheap to build on our roads. It also stops buses pulling out in front of cyclists and cars too, whilst also keeping cars out of bus lanes altogether. And of all the cities I've cycled in, Paris is the most stress free.

The point you make about turning roads into cul-de-sacs allowing children to play is a good one. That is a better argument to me for advocating adapting residential roads in that way.

Again, it's not helpful to cite countries in data that are not like for like. Denmark for the same reasons as Holland is not like the UK. In London, there are just too many people who for various reasons can not turn to pedal power. They need plentiful cheap public transport and some of them need vehicles (night workers/ tradespeople etc). Consider this instead....the population of London has increased by 30% over the past 25 years. Now take a look at the increases in investment in infrastructure (including transport) over the same period. There'll you find the answer as to why London is creaking (and why everything is so expensive).

It's very easy to say this or that works somewhere else, but you have to understand why it works there before looking at somewhere else and seeing if the same conditions exist for it to work there.

[richard tudor]

Dear DJKQ

A very good response and having lived in NY for many years I can confirm the points you make. Holland I have been involved with on a personnel level for over 40 years and trying to compare this Country to us is very silly. Dutch towns, cities and villages all share one great asset. SPACE. Ring roads operate for them all and are all planned not like here. The density of housing is not crowded unlike here. Residential roads come off these ring roads serving the area.

To make roads into Cul-de-Sacs here wont work for there is no ring road system only roads to move thru. Once you enter into this idea areas turn into enclaves. But then for ED I suspect this is what is wanted.

Denmark again has space. Modern and planned

London,be it cities or towns does not have the space to copy any of the above.

One thing that is never mentioned in Countries like Denmark and Holland people do not commute as we do. 20/25 minutes to work is pushing it hence why they cycle on purpose built cycle roads.

In this Country too many people, old and crowded roads, too many houses in limited space and no way easy to improve.

[Green]

Sometimes I wonder if the pun pushers at Southwark Council haven't got anything better to do.

[Pepe the Horseman]

My brother-in-law works for Southwark council, he says it's nonsense, so you can all stop worrying.

[Coops46]

Very interesting points, and I do understand where you're coming from. I've spent a lot of time in Holland myself, as well as some in Denmark working / studying, and I think the overall thing is how much more liveable they are.

There's no point brushing ideas under the rug without coming up with satisfactory solutions, but this needs to start at a local level.

Compare our 'cycle superhighways' with Denmark's, where they are taking people up to 16km into the centre from the outskirts (similar situation) on purpose built lanes where commuters achieve an average of 20km/h.

You're right, we are a different situation to other megacities, but what we certainly don't share is their ambition for active transport and safer streets. I agree that 20mph limits aren't the full answer, which is why I urge a rethink on how we do things, starting with what I see locally.

There are plenty benefits to reducing speed limits, increasing walking and cycling through infrastructure, and reducing road incidents. But you're not making clear the negatives?

[DulwichFox]

With so many road closures / no right turns / no entries (not just East Dulwich)

many drivers get lost.

They become frustrated and annoyed and this does not help with their overall driving performance.

A absolute Classic example of this is :-

Oakhurst Rd. used to run into East Dulwich Road..

But the last 50 mtres is closed off (No Entry) Non Residential ???

So you have to go from Oakhurst:-

Kelmore Grove:- Residential.

The Gardens:- Residential.

Peckham Rye (B219):- Heavy Traffic congestion

then left back into East Dulwich rd.

That's if you don't get lost again.

More dangerous to Residents.

More Pollution.

More congestion.

Ridiclous..

Fox.

[DJKillaQueen]

There are no mega-cities in Holland and there are no mega-cities in Denmark....let's be clear about that. Richard eloquently illustrates the impact of space to any kind of town planning.

If we look at true mega-cities elsewhere though, we see that in megacities that are younger, they fare better, using latest technologies and planning to create better functioning cities for modern life. London is one of the oldest cities in the modern World. When cities like Paris were demolishing slums and redesigning with those huge boulevards cutting through radial ring roads, London went on as before. We all know what happened after the Fire of London, when town planners seeing the perfect opportunity to rebuild London in a better planned way, couldn't.

London has always been a city of add-ons. A central old town with narrow streets that slowly swallowed up villages and other towns around it. It's why it is so diverse from street to street in some areas, and also the result of untold buereacries that made any kind of meaningful city planning impossible.

An average journey accross London takes an hour or more. The majority of Londoners just don't live near enough to their place of work to make cycling feasible either. South london is particularly poorly served and continues to be so by modern aproaches to transport infrastruce...an East to West line (Crossrail) being considered more important than an meaningful North to South links for example.

There are always things that can be done, but the cost to do them is prohibitive.

[Coops46]

That's strange... because all mayoral parties signed up to 'Go Dutch' at the last election as part of the LCC's campaign.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/johnson-narrows-cycling-policy-gap-with-livingstone-by-committing-to-three-go-dutch-demands

If Boris will implement what he promised is another matter, there is already strong work going on to better facilitate cycling in London, especially by councils like Hackney and Camden.

If we carried on with "you can't do this" and "you can't do that", then we wouldn't be the city we are today. You seem rather defeatist, which is sad.

[the-e-dealer]

I think Nick Clegg has shown what Manifesto Promises mean.

[Coops46]

Yes, true. I actually spoke to Boris the other day on this matter (bumped into him whilst cycling), unfortunately he could barely string a sentence together, let alone remember his pre-election promises.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm not defeatist at all...just realistic. We are not Paris, Amsterdam or Tokyo. Nor are we having a balanced debate about roads and transport infrastructure here.

If I'm going to the supermarket for the weekly shop....my bicycle is no good to me any more than a crowded bus or train. Cycling is not some great solution to it all. I've cycled in London for 26 years, and there are more cyclists on the roads than ever, but the journeys by car, bus, train etc made by others are more expensive and crowded than they've ever been, more time consuming in some cases, and less frequent in others. Also my ability to cycle long distances was better 26 years ago than it is today. I don't want to cycle in the cold, and the rain anymore. I'm 45 years old and beginning to feel it.

We are not keeping up with demand....and we are not investing enough.....that's the bottom line. Where are your suggestions for making public transport affordable and plentiful? Where are your solutions for those who need cars? Cycling is a great option for those whom it makes sense to do so....but what about the rest? You have no interests in them it seems.

It all needs a massive rethink, and it all needs massive investment. You are too young to know how little actually gets done over time, especially when it comes to anything costing large amounts of tax payers money to bring about. I think also your age misleads you into thinking cycling is an easy option for everyone.....when it's not. You are not thinking about the alternatives for those for whom cycling is either impractical or impossible. And for some, the only alternative is the car....and they have as much right to get from A-B in as reasonable a time and safe manner, as you.

The world is full of graduates who think they have the answers to everything after a couple of years of data based research. I was one of them once too. What life and age has shown me though is that finding real working solutions to anything as complex as transport infrastructure is extremely hard and can't be done without considering the needs of ALL transport/ road users fairly, and the insights of those who experience the failings of it directly.