Here in case of interest is the monitoring plan (from the trial website) -
[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]
This makes clear that major displacement of traffic is anticipated by LB Southwark and a new Bromar/Pythchley Roads «rat run » anticipated too. Joanna Lesak has been evasive when asked what the « target measures » are, saying only that they have  « yet to be decided ». When, how and by whom? Why haven’t these criteria already been established? Whose responsibility will it be if the trial impacts on air quality and/or on emergency response times? I asked Joanna how pollution levels would be monitored on DKH, Grove Lane, Champion Park, Pythchley and Bromar Roads during the trial. She said they wouldn’t be monitoring as such, only deduced from traffic levels. LBS hope to have the trial in place for up to a year (Jan19-Jan20), during the same period as already disruptive major roadworks on Denmark Hill/Camberwell Green. The trial should be deferred until these have been completed, which will also allow for grounds to be properly established for proceeding with it and for the impacts on air quality, emergency response times and bus journeys to be properly considered.

If this trial is allowed to just go ahead for a year it will be pretty certain it will remain in place for ever. Have you ever known Southwark to rescind anything?

"I asked Joanna how pollution levels would be monitored on DKH, Grove Lane, Champion Park, Pythchley and Bromar Roads during the trial. She said they wouldn’t be monitoring as such, only deduced from traffic levels."

Says it all really a stitch up in the making.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2018:10:21:16:11:47 by Charles Notice.

Which is precisely why it must not be allowed to go ahead. The expensive fiasco that was the Loughborough Junction closure (a Lambeth initiative) had to be abandoned two months in after this feedback was received from the emergency services and Kings College Hospital:

5.4 Official Submissions
5.4.1 London Ambulance Service (APPENDIX H)
The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. However, their official response raised concerns regarding;
• A perceived increase in traffic congestion
• The reduction in available routes for general motor traffic having a knock-on
effect on other roads and the potential to increase response and journey times
• The use of physical barriers at a number of the closures reduces the number of
available routes to emergency crews
• Possible increases in pollution generated from stationary/slow moving traffic
NB All physical barriers referred to have been removed to allow emergency services to pass through freely and this has been acknowledged by the London Ambulance Service.
5.4.2 London Fire Brigade (APPENDIX I)
The London Fire Brigade has raised a formal objection to the scheme based on;
• Gridlocked roads throughout the Coldharbour Lane area
• Specifically total gridlock at most times of the day and evening in Coldharbour
Lane, Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road
• Antisocial behaviour and poor/dangerous driving being witnessed by drivers
including 3 point turns on crowded roads and driving on pavements
• A significant knock on effect to surrounding roads as commuters and residents
try and circumvent the closures
• Coldharbour Lane is Primary Route for attending incidents and as such
reduced attendance times have been experienced
It was stated that it is too early to provide empirical data or evidence confirming the increase in journey times but the objection stands.
5.4.3 Metropolitan Police Service (APPENDIX J)
The Metropolitan Police Service stated that it would raise no objection to the scheme at this stage as it is too early for any measurable analysis to have taken place.
9
5.4.4 Kings College Hospital (APPENDIX K)
KCT submitted a three page response to the review and the issues raised by KCH can be summarised as follows:
• Better efforts should have been made at engagement with KCH before the introduction of the closures
• Staff have experienced significant delays when travelling by bus or car
• Delays and local road congestion is a cause for concern for patients, visitors
and staff
• Staff feedback of patients reporting difficulty arriving for appointment on time
• An increase in queuing around Cutcombe and Caldicott Road, the main
vehicle access routes to the hospital car park
• Staff experiencing delays of between 20-30 minutes, results of which include
added stress and an impact on managing work/life schedules including
childcare
• Concerns about road safety for pedestrians and cyclists
• Lack of appropriate signposting for the road closures and new traffic
arrangements

The road closures impacted most adversely and dangerously on residents of the Loughborough Estate:

5.4.6 Loughborough Estate Management Board (APPENDIX M)
A written submission from the Chair of the LEMB raised a number of concerns including:
• The detrimental effect on residents, staff, businesses and visitors to and from the estate
10
• Vehicles using the private estate roads as a cut through and rat run to avoid the Barrington Road closure, endangering the lives of children and residents
• Access difficulties for healthcare professionals and carers needing to visit vulnerable residents on the estate
• Missed appointments at King’s College Hospital due to congestion of Coldharbour Lane
• The effect of the closures on local businesses and longer journey times

Traffic displaced by the ChampionHill trial would similarly endanger the lives of children and residents on the East Dulwich Estate.

Deadline for consultation is tomorrow, Monday 22nd October.

Link here:

[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

What is really sad is the present Council staff do not accept the knowledge of older residents, most new residents are not interested and do not reply to any survey. Most people do not go to Southwark Web sites to see what Southwark is proposing nor do they walk looking at things pinned to lamp posts It would be interesting to see the results of the survey. How many surveys were sent out, how many replied, how many yes or no's to the proposal. So what looks good on paper to their untested plans does not represent how things really work in the overall scheme of things.

Having worked in Local Authority after the private sector, once an idea is raised and it meets what most those round the table want, whether it is right, they will pass it through if it meets a current popular fad.

Champion Hill is a tried and tested route which works. It is only busy for a very limited period of time morning and evening. In fact when I have have ever used it it has been very quiet.

Unfortunately due to all the recent re-organisation in Southwark those staff with the in depth knowledge of how things work and argue against with knowledge have gone.

Camberwell Grove Bridge has reopened and there does not seem any problem with traffic and pollution, Champion Hill has minimal traffic for a small part of the day. Why this scheme.

I have a feeling an answer will already be winging its way from a certain quarter.

Charles Notice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Champion Hill has minimal traffic for a
> small part of the day. Why this scheme.

It's amazing how apparently Champion Hill experiences virtually no traffic - yet if that minimal traffic that's only even there for a small part of the day is diverted to Denmark Hill/Grove Lane it will cause carmageddon?

You have not disappointed.

Charles Notice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have not disappointed.


Indeed. Perhaps you could stop being snotty and explain why "minimal traffic for a small part of the day" (your words, not mine) being diverted onto a main through route will cause problems?

ETA By the way Charles, you do know this is a discussion forum, right? I.e. it's permissible for those
who do not agree with your opinions to post? Just checking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2018:10:21:18:47:01 by rendelharris.

I thought we were talking of the effect of traffic being diverted to Grove Hill Road, Bromar Road etc.

spider69 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought we were talking of the effect of traffic
> being diverted to Grove Hill Road, Bromar Road
> etc.

The traffic from a road which, according to you, has "very little traffic". If the traffic volume is as low as you claim, why do you believe it would have any serious impact?

I have not said that. It does seem you are on auto pilot.

Although I agree that apart from the rush hour Champion Hill in my experience does not get excessive traffic flows to warrant this scheme.

However if the Champion Hill Junction is closed it will force traffic that normally uses route to reach other areas will be forced elsewhere.

Grove Hill Road, Bromar and Pytchley Road to arrive after a large detour to where they want to get to on upper Denmark Hill.

If you live on Champion Hill you will have to use this massive detour.

I have voted against I hope others have as well.

"I have not said that. It does seem you are on auto pilot."

spider69, October 3rd, 10.03 AM, wrote: "I have not seen any major increase in traffic over the years apart from the brief burst when the rush hour is on. Not that you would really notice. Apart from that brief spurt it is pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and car users with very little traffic and is safe to use."

Funny that, eh, it almost looks like you did, in fact, say exactly that.

Please explain why the junction should be closed.I have stated my point. Evidence to warrant closure.

You really have a problem if you have to go to such lengths delving into the past to keep your ego intact.

Await your reply. At least I am keeping you busy so you must be pleased.

If you do not reply I will not be offended.

spider69 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please explain why the junction should be closed.I
> have stated my point. Evidence to warrant
> closure.
>
> You really have a problem if you have to go to
> such lengths delving into the past to keep your
> ego intact.
>
> Await your reply. At least I am keeping you busy
> so you must be pleased.
>
> If you do not reply I will not be offended.

It's hardly delving into the past, it was a few days ago and I remember what you said - it stuck in my mind chiefly because it was so absurd. I'm afraid there's little point in engaging in debate with someone who says something one day then claims they didn't say it two weeks later, even though the evidence is there on this thread in black and white. Trumpian! You advanced the argument that there was no need to have any traffic control measures on Champion Hill as there is "very little traffic". Yet you claim that diverting this "very little traffic" off CH will cause untold traffic problems? Can you acknowledge the logical inconsistency of this?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2018:10:21:19:46:58 by rendelharris.

You have not explained why it should be closed.

Will adopt a variation of the fox decision, when your name comes up avoid not worth the hassle. Your responses/views are well known by now.

Just type "RendelHarris" most people will know your response to most subjects.


"It's hardly delving into the past, it was a few days ago and I remember what you said - it stuck in my mind chiefly because it was so absurd. I'm afraid there's little point in engaging in debate with someone who says something one day then claims they didn't say it two weeks later,"

Goodnight

So in other words, you can't actually justify the logical inconsistency of claiming that a road has "very little traffic" but that diverting that traffic elsewhere will cause apocalyptic congestion, and so you refuse to debate and resort to insult. That's fine, whatever works for you. You definitely have an affinity with the current incumbent of the White House - claim you didn't say what you said, even when the written evidence is there for everyone to see, then resort to bullying and insults when proven wrong. Top notch.

It's not possible to model the impact of trials like this with particular accuracy, even assuming everything else could be fixed. External factors from everything like whether it's a cold winter to whether there's a no deal Brexit will impact on traffic levels. Traffic impacts are harder than ever to model as so many drivers are being guided by Google, Waze etc. and their algorithms are secret and evolving.

Far better to go ahead with an experiment but given people an idea of the thresholds that will be used to judge success or not and a chance to comment on them.

Hi bagpipes,
If people currently driving across from Grove Hill Road to Champion Hill wont. So they wont queue beside Dog kennel hill waiting for the green light. So Dog Kennel hill school should see a reduction in traffic idling besides their school.
Traffic displacement. If the traffic is coming along Avondale Rise it would need to turn left and join Dog kennel hill via Quorn or Pytchley. Both would be serious delays meaning much traffic will evaporate from the area. If they turn down Camberwell Grove they'll be delayed by the filtered traffic lights and then going through Camberwell Grove. Again much traffic will evaporate if they decide that is the next best alternative.
Minimal queue on Champion Park joining Denmark Hill currently. The loss of the through route E to W if it all went via via Champion Grove, the parallel A road would see that A road have less than 50% increase in traffic.
I do live on champion Hill - but I think such measures should be widespread. I'd personally prefer them to be cameras enforced and limited to non Southwark residents. No Southwark residents should be on our A & B roads not our unclassified residential streets. And vice cress when I'm in a car in other boroughs. It could also then be trisected to the most approripaite times of day, etc.

--------------------
Regards jamesvbarber@gmail.com
former Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward (2006-2018)
[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]
[twitter.com]

I take your point. However, there still have to be proper grounds for going ahead with a trial which will impact on as wide an area as this, on peak time bus services and on journey times to Kings. Adequate grounds have yet to be provided for this trial, which proposes to exclude westbound through-traffic from what is manifestly the safest and healthiest street in the area to make neighbouring streets less safe and less healthy. The timing of the proposed trial also could not be worse, coinciding as it does with major roadworks in the immediate vicinity.

Agreed. This is an evidence-free trial. Pressing ahead without sufficient impact monitoring and analysis is unjustifiable.

50% increase in traffic sounds like rather a lot to me James - that’s half as much again.

James Barber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi bagpipes,
> If people currently driving across from Grove Hill
> Road to Champion Hill wont. So they wont queue
> beside Dog kennel hill waiting for the green
> light. So Dog Kennel hill school should see a
> reduction in traffic idling besides their school.
>
> Traffic displacement. If the traffic is coming
> along Avondale Rise it would need to turn left and
> join Dog kennel hill via Quorn or Pytchley. Both
> would be serious delays meaning much traffic will
> evaporate from the area. If they turn down
> Camberwell Grove they'll be delayed by the
> filtered traffic lights and then going through
> Camberwell Grove. Again much traffic will
> evaporate if they decide that is the next best
> alternative.
> Minimal queue on Champion Park joining Denmark
> Hill currently. The loss of the through route E to
> W if it all went via via Champion Grove, the
> parallel A road would see that A road have less
> than 50% increase in traffic.
> I do live on champion Hill - but I think such
> measures should be widespread. I'd personally
> prefer them to be cameras enforced and limited to
> non Southwark residents. No Southwark residents
> should be on our A & B roads not our unclassified
> residential streets. And vice cress when I'm in a
> car in other boroughs. It could also then be
> trisected to the most approripaite times of day,
> etc.

Agree - this actually represents a significant increase. It will seriously affect northbound bus journey and emergency response times. Congestion in morning rush hour at the Champion Park junction with Denmark Hill has already worsened since the closure of Windsor Walk to through traffic. Throw the major roadworks now beginning on Denmark Hill/around Camberwell Green AND the Champion Hill closure into the mix? Doesn’t bear thinking about. Re traffic “evaporating”, I doubt it. What will happen if this goes ahead is untold congestion and a massive rise in air pollution and highways safety issues, especially on the roads around and bisecting the East Dulwich Estate. One only has to look at the expensive Loughborough Junction fiasco to see how traffic fails to “evaporate” in the real world. The localised congestion, attendant delays and pollution and impacts on Kings caused the no entry scheme to be abandoned (the whole thing costing Lambeth Council £100,000).

Looks like this is going ahead. Seen the notices on the lamp posts leading from Wanley Road and the public notice in the Southwark News on Thursday. Champion Hill Junction 'no entry' Experimental Traffic Order.

I shall be traffic that 'evaporates' since i will be driving through dulwich village and up Sunray avenue- the only reasons I can think of that has warranted this move by southwark is 1) there is a Labour knob living on that route judging by the house that was festooned at the last elections, or 2) someone from Kings has complained because there is a hall of residence along there- BOTH reasons are a joke imvho

uncleglen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I shall be traffic that 'evaporates' since i will
> be driving through dulwich village and up Sunray
> avenue- the only reasons I can think of that has
> warranted this move by southwark is 1) there is a
> Labour knob living on that route judging by the
> house that was festooned at the last elections, or
> 2) someone from Kings has complained because there
> is a hall of residence along there- BOTH reasons
> are a joke imvho

So you've completely made up reasons in your own head and then shout that they are a joke. Quality contribution to debate, as always.

It's worth reading the consultation results before you say that Southwark have taken it fully into consideration

[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

Page 7 shows that based on 141 responses from residents in the consultation area 83 voted yes and 54 voted no

Page 8 shows that base on 364 overall responses, 216 voted against the proposal and 135 voted for it

Page 8 also states that motorists are much less in favour

Page 9 breaks this information out into a chart

Based on this the recommendation was to implement the trial

It does raise questions how Southwark interpret results, potentially in their favour, to support what they propose

I'm sorry I can't find page numbers but

fig 5 (all those in the consultation zone) 83 yes, 54 no
fig 6 (champion hill and side roads) 80 yes, 32 no

Other results are based on total responses specifically including those who provide no postcode or post codes outside the consultation zone.

Figure 8 (page 8) shows total respondents, including those in the consultation area (364 in total) and I'm just pointing out that they were allowed to respond but their views were ignored as Southwark didn't set a criteria for the survey and could use what ever elements or interpretation they wanted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2019:01:27:12:01:16 by TheArtfulDogger.

From: richard tudor
Sent: 09 November 2018 16:58
To: Livingstone, Richard; Ali, Jasmine
Subject: Re: Champion Hill Closure

Thank your for your prompt reply.

I have now found the 2015 scheme on the Southwark web site that prompted this scheme and have already replied to the current scheme from the website.

What I found interesting on the 2015 questionaire response is only 30 people from Champion Hill voted. The response from all the surrounding streets balloted just about got on the the reply side which shows peoples concern is not as urgent as is being made out but allowed the instigators to use these figures to push ahead.

Ruskin Park House produced 99 responses.

However there is no breakdown on how Champion Hill, on the actual road voted or how the flats of Ruskin Park House, with most way off the actual road, voted.

It would be interesting to know how many actual local residents have asked Southwark to reduce the impact of cars along Champion Hill over the last few years as you stated below.

I hope you/Southwark Council are going to produce the full results of the current survey.

"We wouldn’t ask if we didn’t intend to listen." if people voted no from the current survey would you shut the scheme down?

Again I appreciate your prompt response.

Regards

True to say I have never received and reply or response to thee above email of 8th November 2018.

Like all of Southwark's Consultations they only take the figures they need to get what they want through.

There is no need for this trial closure to happen.

richard tudor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What I found interesting on the 2015 questionaire
> response is only 30 people from Champion Hill
> voted. The response from all the surrounding
> streets balloted just about got on the the reply
> side which shows peoples concern is not as urgent
> as is being made out but allowed the instigators
> to use these figures to push ahead.
>
> Ruskin Park House produced 99 responses.

Ruskin Park House is on Champion Hill, that's its address, I know as I used to live there. The only exits from the estate are onto Champion Hill, and thus the residents are affected just as much as any other residents of the street by noise, speeding and pollution. The idea that their votes somehow shouldn't have as much weight as others on the road is risible.