What are peoples thoughts on proposals to close to traffic Turney rd, Court lane & Rosendale rd??

[johnhinton]

TG, your children have grown up and choose not to drive - mine are still too young to make that choice. What we want, as a family, is to be together (live and travel). Compared with the pollution from buses and lorries (making deliveries and messing about with the roads), the private cars used for maybe an hour or so per day can hardly make a difference to overall pollution levels - although the extra time idling in traffic jams probably does create local "hot" spots. What annoys me is the lack of honest and transparent consultation and the imposition of these agenda-driven imperatives. If canvassed properly, I doubt there would be a majority in favour of many of the hare-brained schemes - which is probably why we have not been properly consulted (and those weasel words about "sustainability" in many manifestoes do not count).

[Townleygreen]

JH,

answer me this - London's population is growing fast - what happens when the extra 2 million people buy cars? How impossibly polluted and frustrated are we going to be then?

How many Londoners have to die each year from pollution so that you and your family can travel together?

[first mate]

TG, as you have said, it is in part a generational thing, younger people are making choices based on what works best for them and as pressures increase they will arrange their lives to maximise what continues to work best for them, this probably will involve reduction of car use. However, these sorts of largescale societal changes take time to filter through, they cannot be shoehorned in within a few years.

The population explosion will place pressure on other infrastructures, sewage and waste water for instance, but we won't be advising people to rip out their toilets and bathrooms, will we? Sorry, a slightly facetious point but the current approach is ill thought out, crude and heavy-handed.

[wulfhound]

@first mate - no, but they did just spend ?millions, dig up the park for the best part of a year, permanently rearrange the playground, and indeed closed some roads (albeit temporarily) to reduce the impact of rainwater drainage on the sewer system. Be thankful you don't live or work near a Thames Tideway Tunnel site.

They've already banned high-capacity toilet flush units some years ago - the maximum now is 6 litres, less than half the standard a few years ago. Fortunately, better modern engineering means they're still reasonably.. effective.

[Rockets]

TG - good for your three children I am happy for them. This is precisely my argument - you family's model doesn't work for everyone yet you seem happy to use this ideal as the bar by which you decide what should and shouldn't happen. I work in Chiswick (used to work in Hammersmith and used to cycle in to the office but Chiswick is that bit too far) so my options are very limited.

This is not Victorian Britain where we all work, live and play within a bike ride of our homes.

I don't feel I need to address your point on pollution as I am not arguing there is not a problem just we need to have an approach that is more inclusive. The stop driving cars, stop taking flights model just doesn't work. We need a more intelligent and inclusive debate. The "let's reduce car usage" is all too often hijacked by local government as means to raise further funds by punishing drivers trying to go about their business - the Loughborough Junction debacle is a prime example and these proposals look like more of the same.

[TheCat]

TownleyGreen.....how many people outside London have to die from pollution from coal fired power plants, so you can power your computer to make these unrealistic and over the top comments?

My 18 month old son has just learnt to walk, so he's a little way off riding a bicycle to nursery just yet. If I walk him there then there is no way that I'll be able to get to my job anywhere near on time. And I need that job to pay my council tax to fund all these ridiculous schemes you seemingly love.

[Townleygreen]

TheCat, coal fired power plants are being rapidly phased out, that's why we're about to spend a fortune on nuclear ones!! The reason coal plants are being phased out is because they contribute to global warming. their pollution was filtered out years ago. You're living in the past!

No one is saying you won't be able to drive your son to nursery any more!

Really, you don't seem to understand the issues here.

People need to have a wider perspective on how things are going to have to be in the future.

[TheCat]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> TheCat, coal fired power plants are being rapidly

> phased out, that's why we're about to spend a

> fortune on nuclear ones!! The reason coal plants

> are being phased out is because they contribute to

> global warming. their pollution was filtered out

> years ago. You're living in the past!

>

> No one is saying you won't be able to drive your

> son to nursery any more!

>

> Really, you don't seem to understand the issues

> here.

>

> People need to have a wider perspective on how

> things are going to have to be in the future.

Thanks for your judgement on my non-understanding of the issues. I was just following your lead making ridiculous comments for fun.....

I think your take on 'the issues' is utopian, and completely impractical. As many others have said on here, there are ways via which 'social engineering' to reduce car ownership can be made without trying to shoehorn these changes in a short time-frame. Yes, we all need a 'wide perspective' on the future, but one eye must be kept on the short term practicalities for the majority of the population.

[first mate]

Yes, they have made incremental changes to infrastructure, a ban on high capacity toilet flushes being the most relevant comparison but they have not recommended that within 5 years all flat owners will have to share loos and showers and all homeowners should rip out any bathrooms and replace them with time-limited shower units - that is more like the set of current proposals. Too much, too soon.

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> @first mate - no, but they did just spend

> ?millions, dig up the park for the best part of a

> year, permanently rearrange the playground, and

> indeed closed some roads (albeit temporarily) to

> reduce the impact of rainwater drainage on the

> sewer system. Be thankful you don't live or work

> near a Thames Tideway Tunnel site.

>

> They've already banned high-capacity toilet flush

> units some years ago - the maximum now is 6

> litres, less than half the standard a few years

> ago. Fortunately, better modern engineering means

> they're still reasonably.. effective.

[Townleygreen]

TheCat said "Yes, we all need a 'wide perspective' on the future, but one eye must be kept on the short term practicalities for the majority of the population."

For your information, 70% of London households did not own a car in 2011* and that % is continuing to rise.

What was that about the majority? I think you are in a smallish minority.

*http://www.uncsbrp.org/driving.htm

[TheCat]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> TheCat said "Yes, we all need a 'wide perspective'

> on the future, but one eye must be kept on the

> short term practicalities for the majority of the

> population."

>

> For your information, 70% of London households did

> not own a car in 2011* and that % is continuing to

> rise.

>

> What was that about the majority? I think you are

> in a smallish minority.

>

>

>

>

> *http://www.uncsbrp.org/driving.htm

How long did you spend googling to find a stat that supports your agenda? In the same link you provide they also quote a figure of 0.76 cars per household in London, then they also have a link to a study quoting 54% of London households own a car...but you didn't mention those one's did you?

Anyway....I'm going to go drive round the block for fun now.....

[Townleygreen]

seconds darling

[first mate]

TG,

In fairness to TheCat I think she was referring to this particular locale. However, what I find interesting is the wider trend, presumably well under way before the mass meddling began. The issue is that attempts are being made to wildly force stuff through and without proper consultation, therefore it feels experimental. I just want to see the agenda slowed down, let's stand back and see what impact a few changes have, let's consult properly and that way we reduce stress all round whilst, we hope, heading for a better infrastructure that works all round.

[johnhinton]

TG, you wrote >answer me this - London's population is growing fast - what happens when the extra 2 million people buy cars? How impossibly polluted and frustrated are we going to be then? <

The extra people moving into London won't be sheep; they're not going to assume the need to buy huge charabancs to go with their space-limited apartments. You should allow them the same privilege you had when bringing up your children: the right to make informed and sensible decisions that suited you. Not trusting people is why the councils are using these sneaky, incremental changes: if they had said their plan was to make car ownership illegal or prohibitively expensive, they might not be in power now. If London will be as grim as think, there will be fewer people moving here. Pollution isn't the greatest ill facing Londoners - perhaps you feel some guilt for your profligacy in earlier decades, but that is no reason to impose it on others now.

[Townleygreen]

Yes, first mate, that's fair enough but our politicians should be arguing (as I am trying to!) the case for these changes not simply trying to push things through.

But they need to happen before our city begins to really suffer.

Maybe the new segregated cycling lanes will help persuade people but politicians are not doing their job for the good of the whole conurbation.

[first mate]

TG great, we sort of agree on what I see as the main issue which is lack of consultation. We have an intelligent population why not have the debate properly? Instead people, myself included, are reduced to ranting on the forum because there is little faith in our elected reps to properly listen and represent us when it counts.

James appears to support the wilder fringes of those proposing the agenda and there seems little to choose between his take and S'wark Labour, and Charlie Smith who came on here for, I think, only the second time ever, sounded like his mind was already made up and that he would not be listening to those (presumably like me) who "snide" anonymously on the forum. So that's it, loads of objectors dismissed, jus' like that!

What to do?

[Townleygreen]

I think it needs some city-wide statements from the Mayor first, explaining what is needed and why, and over what timescale.

Can't see him doing it though!

[wulfhound]

I think it needs some city-wide statements from the Mayor first, explaining what is needed and why, and over what timescale.

This. And where's his professional-journalist-turned-cycling-commissioner pal? You'd have thought a man who made his name at BBC & the Daily Telegraph could manage a bit more communication on this stuff. The original "Mayor's Cycling Vision" press releases were superbly articulate, but that was, what, two years ago now?

In some ways I don't think consultation is the whole answer - eventually they have to decide to either just build the thing or not build it, as with airports and high speed rail, and accept that some will be unhappy whatever the outcome.

I do feel for those who have to drive across S.London regularly - it does very much seem to be happening all at once, on a whole raft of unrelated schemes backed by different ideologies (the thinking behind Loughborough Junction, Elephant & Castle and the Quietways are poles apart) - but at the same time, when it comes to providing for the supposed new, not-the-usual-demographic cyclists, doesn't it have to be a bit all-or-nothing? Closing half a road seems to me rather like fighting half a war or being a little bit pregnant.

But the whole thing would be much easier - and indeed more democractic - if there had been a city-wide conversation first about the Quietways, so that people understood what they were, why they're needed (and perhaps had a fair chance to vote their advocates out of office, if it's that bad.)

[Townleygreen]

wulfhound, I totally agree.

[Melihoople]

As a family with young children i want to see proposals for better public transport links not into and out of town but criss cross.

I use the whole of the local area and visit family friends. I can't get between west, east, north, village, Camberwell, peckham rye, Crystal palace, west Norwood. Often to make these journeys it takes 10 mins by car. But a 3 bus never-ending journey on public transport... How could i afford todo that regularly or afford the time it takes.

[Pevara]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> I don't know, presumably there are plenty of side

> streets (not involved in these Quietways?) that

> could take them.

>

Charming! So let's divert traffic from the larger roads which were designed to take them into the quieter surrounding residential streets, which will be both narrower (hence slower moving traffic and potentially more localized pollution) and where houses will be closer to the road (hence more noise blight for residents). All this being in addition to the aggravation to the motorists as well.

The problem with zealots is they only ever care for their own agenda. There isn't the more community minded (or even, simply, rational) appreciation of how their actions or proposals might impact others.

In this instance, wouldn't it be possible to leave the larger roads fully open to motor traffic and route the cycle quietways through roads that are already quiet - the very side streets that you want to inflict motor traffic on? Cycle routes may be a little longer, but hey, that just means your health agenda will be served better, right?

[first mate]

Remember the stated aim, and I quote, is to "design out" traffic on residential roads in 5 years and to remove parking on main roads within the same timeframe.

So, by routing cars onto sidestreets I imagine they hope to make life as unpleasant as possible for car drivers and to turn residents against car drivers. This is the kind of imaginative, blue skies thinking we are paying our taxes for folks.

[wulfhound]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londons-toxic-air-has-already-caused-1300-premature-deaths-this-year-10296515.html

@first mate - where does that quote come from? Is that a borough document, or Mayor's cycling vision, or something else?

The Quietways are supposed to be on quieter streets! Turney Road & Calton Avenue meet that description (at least in theory). Court Lane isn't supposed to be part of it, tbh I don't know why they want to close that one.. perhaps to stop traffic banned from Calton Ave diverting on to the other small residential streets?

Rosendale Road is a bit of an odd one, as it does carry a fair bit of traffic & seems reasonably well designed to cope with it (at least the bit between Robson Rd & the S Circ) - but I suppose it's quiet compared to Norwood Road or Croxted Road. The big problem with closing it is that it'll push more traffic on to existing cycle route Alleyn Park.

[first mate]

It is in the S'wark cycling strategy doc 2015- a link was posted in an earlier thread.

Goodness only knows what they are up to, but quite apart from the whole business of trying to force people out of cars a deeply cynical part of me wonders if they also want to place enough traffic pressure on residential roads that people start begging for CPZ; don't forget they are slowly reducing parking spaces. Don't forget also that we will soon have Harris and Charter and M&S. Whatever reassurances they give, these developments will bump up traffic and parking up. It seems from the Loughborough experiment that the Council have tried to cash in on deliberate creation of chaos by then fining, perhaps this is another aim....who knows.

The thing that drives me mad is that there seems to be no coherent explanation/consultation or accountability. Instead, Councillors come on here to say what they want and no more or dismiss objectors as hysterical (the anti Melbourne Barrier campaign were accused of this by Councillors) and posters on here as "snides".

[mako]

For your information, 70% of London households did not own a car in 2011* and that % is continuing to rise.

What was that about the majority? I think you are in a smallish minority.

Townleygreen.

TfL have 54% of london households owning at least one car. 'Own' also doesnt include those who rent, hire, lease or have a company car. Others also may travel in cars with friends family neighbours and colleagues. Ownership is obviously higher in some groups. A family with young children living in the outer boroughs with limited transport are obviously more in need of a car than a single 20 something living next to a tube bang in the middle of town and ownership rates reflect that (75% ownreship in richmond). So just because your children manage without a car is irrelevamt and typical argument of people who on one hand say you need to look at the bigger picture and then back it up with their own particular circumstances.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf