New proposed crossings & parking on LL.

[karter]

It has come around again, many of you should have received the proposals forms this time around ( or maybe not as last time.)

For those who have not, there are three proposal points:

Point A: Raised entry between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane (with signal crossing outside Bishop )

Point B: Puffin signal crossing between Crawthew Grove and opposite on Lordship Lane (outside white stuff).

Point C: Raised puffin signal crossing between Co-op and opposite on Lordship Lane (outside curry house).

The drawings have timeclocks (24 hours?) on whole and each part. And mention to include short stay parking on the side roads (Nutfield, Frogley..) to compensate for loss of parking.

Will this mean loss of parking for local businesses and homeowners? This is not mentioned on the proposal forms. All comments should go to [email protected] by 6th June or call 020 7525 5553

I seem to recall a local lib dem dude pushing for this.

regards

K

[amydown]

Haven't received anything through the post but dropped them an e-mail. Thank you for the post.

Personally, I would love to see the pedestrian crossings as per the proposal (both from pedestrian and driver's point of view). It's quite scary when you are driving down Lordship Lane, especially near Coop. So many people jump onto the road from behind parked cars - tempted to do so in order to avoid having to walk to the pedestrian crossings. It's so dangerous.

[new mother]

Would some of GG be lost?

[karter]

new mother Wrote:

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

> Would some of GG be lost?

If you mean Goose Green then no as it would not go down that far. Last time the consultation was majorly flawed and was not valid. This time so far it has been prepared in a proper manner it would seem. Households should be receiving the consultation forms SO speak up if you have not received them. Give your views. My personal view is that an extra crossing is needed along the stretch but not two of them so close together. People do need to get to work in the mornings without stopping every 100 metres. :))

Perhaps James Barber could explain to people what the time clocks on the plan refer to?

Thanks.

[Chener Books]

I'm surprised that this major re-modelling of Lordship Lane has had little comment here.

I note that we are to become the "East Dulwich Corridor".

John K

[StraferJack]

I think one extra crossing sounds about right to me. Something is needed between Londis and Goose Green but it needs to be balanced with traffic flow. 2 or 3 crossings seems like overkill

I think the junction outside the Bishop with East Dulwich Grove is a concern in and of itself, regardless of any other considerations. It?s at this junction I see the most dangerous driving and is the hardest to cross on foot.

So I think if a new crossing could be used to temper/improve that junction it could be a double-win

The spot outside the co-op might actually be the most convenient, but on balance I would favour the above

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I'm still concerned that crossing ED Grove will be a problem, unless there is a delay on traffic turning right, which will give pedestrians a chance to get across safely.

Actually that doesn't make sense, unless the traffic lights for the new crossing are put on the north side of the yellow box but I doubt that will happen.

[first mate]

What is meant by short stay parking on side roads? Will this limit parking spots for residents? If so, that would be a concern.

Does anyone know of reliable stats for injuries to pedestrians along this stretch of LL? What are the figures for driver prosecution/police arrests for dangerous driving?

I continue to see lots of pedestrians plugged into various bits of technology who cross roads in a very dangerous way, seemingly unaware of their surroundings. I see lots of kids seriously speeding up and down side roads, I also see lots of drivers, of all ages, chatting on the moby with one hand whilst clutching the steering wheel with the other. I'm not sure how the expensive crossings will address any of these.

Why not just make the lower stretch of LL 20mph and police heavily for 6 months. I too think more than one crossing is probably excessive, but I don't know what the rationale/evidence is.

[kford]

More here:

http://southsouthwarkbusinessassociation.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-crossing-proposals-for-lordship.html

[Penguin68]

I continue to see lots of pedestrians plugged into various bits of technology who cross roads in a very dangerous way

Don't worry, the muggers will get them.

[James Barber]

I would like to see the main high street part of LL 20mph. Fingers crossed we'll get our way on this if resident support it.

The short term parking proposed on side roads is removing single and double yellow lines. So I'm expecting no overall reduction in parking for visitors or residents.

It will have taken us 4 years from when we had Living Street undertake a pedestrian audit to get these crossing in.

The coop crossing is obvious.

Te crossing outside the bishop is to partly regulate the crossing of east Dulwich grove as is the raised entry treatment linking both side of LL.

I'm not sure what the time clocks mean and will find out.

[peckhamboy]

James - do these proposals appear on the Southwark website anywhere, and if so could you please post a link? I had a look but couldn't find anything.

[first mate]

Hi James,

where can we find the detail of the pedestrian audit?

[bonaome]

I'd love the opportunity to drive down Lordship Lane going as fast as 20MPH.

I also couldn't find the proposals on the website - could someone post the link?

[karter]

Finally, agreeed James. A 20 mph monitor would go well on LL to SLOW traffic. Plans show no times on side roads and show red lines on side streets, meaning what? Speed bumps? Plan drawings of trees on LL look nice though?!? Not sure how that helps. They should just makes things clear and transparent for once...

[bonaome]

I found the plans. It wasn't easy. It's like Southwark are trying to hide them. Still can't find them on the website. Found on James Barber's blog/site here

Personally I welcome the crossing outside the co-op, but I can't see the need for a second one a few meters down the road at the junction of East Dulwich Grove and LL. Perhaps I'm missing the point.

[James Barber]

Hi Peckhamboy,

I've not found them on the Southwark Council website but I did post them on my blog a month ago:

http://www.jamesbarber.org.uk/ look at 14 April.

NB the tree outlines represent already present trees.

Hi first Mate,

I did track down the Living Streets street audit but can;t find it again. I'll keep looking for you.

Hi bonaome,

Sadly Lordship Lane and Grove Vale do have a number of speed related crahses every year and changing them to 20mph would make a noticeable difference.

[Loz]

I can barely do 5MPH down LL most of the time.

[kford]

I'm with PGC, the Crawthew Grove one is a wasted opportunity - it should be located north of the ED Grove junction to ease crossing there. In the proposed location, on a red light, it will encourage vehicles to pull out of the traffic queue to turn right into ED Grove, something that happens regularly at the crossing by Denmark Hill station. Dangerous for pedestrians crossing, bikers and cyclists filtering and motorists turning left out of ED Grove.

[James Barber]

But vehicles turning left from LL facing northwards would give pedestrians little opportunity to avoid them.

Equally the vehicels going southward tunring into EDG cause tail backs along LL the opposite way don't.

So the proposed crossing point maximises LL traffic flow and gives pedestrians a better chance where they are continuing along LL by crossing EDG.

[kford]

N/bound traffic would be hemmed in by the kerb and slowed down by the red light, but I see what you mean, it could hold back the n/bound flow, allowing s/bound traffic to turn right, and there is an 'unofficial' southbound left and right-hand lane there already.

[bonaome]

The Crawthew Grove crossing - I just don't see the benefit, when there's the zebra crossings on the roundabout a few yards down. But I can see the danger as outlined by Kford. All in all the crossing there strikes me as a bad idea.

@JamesBarber: I think you've misinterpreted my earlier comment. I'm with Loz. I don't think I've ever managed to get up to dizzying speeds like 20mph on LL. That is of course because I'm driving on LL on a Saturday morning back from Sainsbury's and the world and it's dog is out and about. No doubt at 4am, I could get up a good lick in the olde jalope. Of course, even if I were to be about and about at 4am on Monday and find the lane free of obstacles, I'd still be inclined to keep to a reasonable speed that would, for example, allow me to break and not collide with another vehicle exiting an abutting road hidden by parked vans etc. Were I the kind of chap who wanted to do 40MPH down LL, I doubt a 20MPH limit would stop me. Is that why studies show that introducing 20MPH zones reduces average speed* by 1.3MPH? A study in Portsmouth I think showed that city wide introduction of 20MPH zones reduced casualties by 8% per year, but increased fatalities (by 1 - not %, actual number, i.e. had no real effect). Have a butcher's.

*Average speed. Mean, mode, median? By day, by part of the day? Who knows? Who cares?

[James Barber]

Hi bonaome,

People had exactly that view of Walworth Road but the changes which largely have results in 20mph being observed even if through lack of choice has resulted in dramatic collission reducton and also the severity of collissions.