South Circular roadworks - excessive disruption

[ab29]

12 minutes ago, Cyclemonkey said:

Mate, you're not that special.  We've been having the water pipes replaced on our road for the last 12 months - road closures, water shut offs, night works, parking restrictions, footpaths closed .... the lot. 

Which road is this?

[malumbu]

52 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

 

But then TFL (and the Mayor and his predecessors ) have always hated and despised South London and have no interest in investment in transport - compare the North Circular with the South, compare the availability of Tubes north and south of the River - well, need I go on?

 

So you are saying every Mayor of London, the Heads of GLC, London County Council and whatever predated that all hate South London?  Really? You are come over a little bitter.

Have you used the new tube lines?  London Overground (as was), Elizabeth line, Jubilee Line extension. The numerous new and enlarged stations in South London?  Extensive suburban train network?

[Rockets]

They don't hate South London but they do hate drivers. Whilst there has been a desperate need for a pedestrian crossing at that junction forever, and I am glad they are finally doing it, I do wonder if the council are more than happy to have 13 weeks of severe traffic disruption. There seems to be a willingness across London to create "nudge" tactics to try and get people out of cars by making travelling by car utterly horrendous so I cannot help but think that local authorities are not looking for ways to minimise disruption. I was always led to believe, maybe incorrectly, that there would be co-ordination between local authorities and works planning to look at minimising traffic disruption and I look at what has been happening recently (A205 works, works on Sydenham Hill, works in Forest Hill, works on Honor Oak Road, works on East Dulwich Grove) and it seems authorities are happy to allow major routes to be massively disrupted and congested. Throw into that that many of the disbursement routes that used to exist are now closed due to LTNs and you can see why there is are increasing congestion (and pollution) problems as a result and why many believe this is a strategic ploy by some authorities to try and "nudge" people out of cars.

[Cyclemonkey]

The South Circular is a red route so comes under TfLs management not Southwark's.

And one of the objectives of red routes is to keep traffic moving, which is why TfL take the lead on these key cross London routes rather than fragmented boroughs.   I don't think it stands up that TfL would be deliberately making these works longer than neccessary because they "hate drivers".   More the works are happening  to protect pedestrians and this is the time it takes to complete safely

 Some people on this site are a bit odd.

Edited March 17 by Cyclemonkey

[Rockets]

The Lordship Lane approach is Southwark's and Southwark are involved in the discussion about impact on local roads - this is not being done by TFL in isolation. In fact, back in 2019 it was called out by Southwark as one of the 20 or so major projects across the borough as part of their Local Implementation Plan 3 (it was consulted on in 2018) - this of course does beg the question why it has taken quite so long to get it executed.

[Cyclemonkey]

There are legitimate questions about the long lead in time  - I assume the pandemic and subsequent financial issues for TfL has been a big factor,  but the idea the duration of works for a much needed pedestrian crossing has been made deliberately longer than necessary because the authorities involved hate drivers is frankly batshit.

 

 

Edited March 17 by Cyclemonkey

[first mate]

If you look at the aims for Southwark and for TFL, within the borough, the desired outcomes and rhetoric are almost identical. It is not hatred of drivers but there is a definite aim to get as many people out of cars as possible. Currently, there seems to be a preference for sticks rather than carrots, so it is entirely possible that making life as difficult as possible for car drivers is seen as justifiable, more so as we head into spring, when the warmer weather may be less of a deterrent to those considering other modes of travel.

[malumbu]

Yes it is right to discourage unnecessary journeys and smarter use of vehicles.  Suggesting that the authorities make road repairs and improvements longer is conspiracy theory territory.  

[Cyclemonkey]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

If you look at the aims for Southwark and for TFL, within the borough, the desired outcomes and rhetoric are almost identical. It is not hatred of drivers but there is a definite aim to get as many people out of cars as possible. Currently, there seems to be a preference for sticks rather than carrots, so it is entirely possible that making life as difficult as possible for car drivers is seen as justifiable, more so as we head into spring, when the warmer weather may be less of a deterrent to those considering other modes of travel.

You need to adjust that tin foil hat, it's slipped a bit.

[first mate]

There is an argument that because neither you or anyone else is really in a position to decide what is or is not an unnecessary journey,  in your zeal to curtail those you negatively affect necessary journeys, also. However, I guess you would see that as acceptable collateral damage.

I doubt the Southwark/ TFL would set out to actively extend works to cause maximum disruption, they just may not put much effort into keeping them as short as possible. The two are rather different, as I am sure you will appreciate.

 

[Cyclemonkey]

Also you know the biggest single thing that makes life difficult for drivers?  Other drivers.  You are all traffic.  Maybe if there were fewer cars on the road there wouldn't be so much congestion. 

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

There is an argument that because neither you or anyone else is really in a position to decide what is or is not an unnecessary journey,  in your zeal to curtail those you negatively affect necessary journeys, also. However, I guess you would see that as acceptable collateral damage.

I doubt the Southwark/ TFL would set out to actively extend works to cause maximum disruption, they just may not put much effort into keeping them as short as possible. The two are rather different, as I am sure you will appreciate.

 

Of course there will been an analysis of the costs and benefits of the job plan - you could have a 7 day a week crew, 24 hour working, night works that close the road completely.  All available tools to shorten the duration of works, but also all expensive and disruptive in their own way.  Money and disruption would have been a factor in the decision - not persecuting the poor put upon car drivers of SE22.

Edited March 17 by Cyclemonkey

[first mate]

The fact that despite everything, people still get into their cars is telling you something.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Cyclemonkey said:

There are legitimate questions about the long lead in time  - I assume the pandemic and subsequent financial issues for TfL has been a big factor,  but the idea the duration of works for a much needed pedestrian crossing has been made deliberately longer than necessary because the authorities involved hate drivers is frankly batshit.

TFL and Southwark have found money-trees of cash for cycle lane infrastructure so one does have to question why this pedestrian infrastructure has taken so long to get funded...but I suspect the answer is in the question I posed....

Nobody is saying it has been made deliberately longer but you cannot deny that there seems scant regard for additional congestion that any works create now for drivers and little to no co-ordination across an area. It is the pro-cycle and active travel community who bang on and on about the need for "nudge" tactics which are stick rather than carrot and when I see what happens locally it seems that this is being applied - local authorities don't seem to care about problems that these works cause and do little to mitigate for the congestion created by them. We have seen Southwark waste huge amounts of our money to create "nudge" tactics - like the ludicrous cycle lane along Sydenham Hill which has clearly been designed and installed as a traffic calming measure above anything else.

 

[malumbu]

Ah, good reminder to post about that cycle lane.  It's as much as narrowing the road to deter speeding, to pretty good effect.  Rather than criticise I'd congratulate Southwark for some joined up thinking.   What is your problem with that, surely there must be something you like about Southwark.  As a cyclist do you not welcome safer cycle routes? 

[first mate]

That's a good reminder that I do not think I have ever seen anyone ever cycle up  or down that hill. Obviously they must do but pretty infrequently, so yes, the cycle lane must have been put in for other reasons...It shows that use /misuse of road management powers to deter drivers cannot just be dismissed as conspiracy theory. Thanks Malumbu for helping to make that point.

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Cyclemonkey]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

The fact that despite everything, people still get into their cars is telling you something.

I really don't want to get in to absolutely tedious banging on about cars and driving that dominate this board (to its detriment IMO).  I think this improvement will benefit everyone and very much welcome it.  I was just a little stunned at the bad tempered carping about delays and frankly insane conspiracy theories.   

[first mate]

The fact that people continue to post about these matters should tell you something as well. As a cycling activist, it is understandable you wish it would all just disappear, leaving you with a version of the world you prefer and that suits you best. It is just that many do not share your perspective.

As for conspiracy theories, well Malumbu has just pointed out that a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds. Is this a new thing?

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is so boring. So anyone who doesn't oppose any new pedestrian crossing is an 'activist'? Come on. The Council may be regularly incompetent, but this crossing is not a secret ruse to cause unnecessary disruption. 

[snowy]

35 minutes ago, first mate said:

The fact that people continue to post about these matters should tell you something as well. As a cycling activist, it is understandable you wish it would all just disappear, leaving you with a version of the world you prefer and that suits you best. It is just that many do not share your perspective.

As for conspiracy theories, well Malumbu has just pointed out that a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds. Is this a new thing?

Sydenham hill is a  traffic calming plan with a cycle lane as an added benefit, not  a cycle lane with traffic calming benefits.

it's covered in traffic management order 202 should you wish to Qwant it (other search engines are available). 

[first mate]

No one has argued the crossing is a ruse to cause disruption, simply that not much effort seems to have been made to minimise disruption, in that 13 weeks to put in a crossing does seem quite lengthy, given the position of the crossing on a major route.

However, not one poster has argued, as you are suggesting, that the crossing is unnecessary or only there to make the life of drivers difficult. That interpretation is all yours.

To my surprise though, Malumbu has applauded Southwark for putting in a cycle lane in order to control traffic. I had not realised a cycle lane could be put in for this purpose.

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Rockets]

33 minutes ago, first mate said:

As for conspiracy theories, well Malumbu has just pointed out that a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds. Is this a new thing?

I don't think anyone has admitted this before but good to know that this is how tax payers money is being wasted. I wonder how much the works on Sydenham Hill cost - it was so clearly, as Malumbu states, an effort to slow traffic rather than aid active travel and is probably the most ludicrous example of the nonsensical approach to road transport that our council is taking - all at a time when cycling is struggling - did anyone see the articles saying bike sales plummeted again and are now at levels not seen since the 1970s - it's clear that despite the massive investment in cycling people are not switching to it long-term.

I whole-heartedly support the need for the pedestrian crossing at that junction - I have been calling for it for a long time as that junction is so difficult to cross - my point (which I believe there is some substance to) is that council officials really are not at all interested in trying to keep traffic flowing freely and that they may actually see massive congestion as part of the "nudge" strategic approach. There is clearly no joined up thinking any more in terms of road infrastructure planning and execution of projects.

[Earl Aelfheah]

50 minutes ago, first mate said:

No one has argued the crossing is a ruse to cause disruption

Perhaps not, but certainly they're implying that the works are being deliberately drawn out in order to cause disruption because they 'hate drivers'. If you believe this, then you really are lost down a rabbit hole.

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

I do wonder if the council are more than happy to have 13 weeks of severe traffic disruption. There seems to be a willingness across London to create "nudge" tactics to try and get people out of cars by making travelling by car utterly horrendous so I cannot help but think that local authorities are not looking for ways to minimise disruption.

...and the works are being undertaken by tfl I believe

44 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I don't think anyone has admitted this before but good to know that this is how tax payers money is being wasted.

What are you talking about? The changes made on Sydenham Hill were very clearly intended to address a speeding and accident hotspot. As Snowy has said, Sydenham hill is a traffic calming plan with a cycle lane as an added benefit, not  a cycle lane with traffic calming benefits.

This is not a conspiracy. There were regular, high speed crashes along that stretch of road in the past.

Edited March 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Nope Earl. You, me and everyone else here know that Rockets was talking about the length of time to do the work, not the work itself. 
 
At 13 weeks, the length of time to complete the work is the potential nudge tactic under discussion not the crossing itself. As you also know, Rockets has very clearly stated support for the crossing, saying it is necessary.

13 weeks may be standard for a crossing of this type to be created, it just seems a painfully long time on a major route like this and you cannot help but think it might be completed more quickly.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You believe that tfl are conspiring with the council to deliberately prolong the work because (in Rockets words) they 'hate drivers'? Is this your position? 

The idea that the work is deliberately being slowed down to try and annoy drivers is literally ridiculous. It's conspiracy theory nonsense. 

Edited March 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Do you believe the council and TFL do not work closely on such matters?

There is also a difference between deliberately extending work and just not going the extra mile to reduce it. This will cause a lot of disruption and 13 weeks to build a crossing feels excessive.

Edited March 17 by first mate