Southwark Consultation on no entry - Denmark Hill/Champion Hill

[rendelharris]

You've lost me FM, I can't see how diverting traffic round Champion Park instead of Champion Hill is going to have any effect on the introduction or otherwise of a CPZ. Champion Hill was already no parking up to the turn and permit/pay parking after that, so restricting access to it will have no effect on parking elsewhere.

[PeterW]

*** Driving for some people isn?t a choice. Not everyone is part of some selfish environment destroying car club, speeding in their 4x4s. I?m a keen cyclist and would love to be able to cycle with my child to school but unfortunately he has a disability and so that isn?t an option ***

Sure - and that's part of the argument for schemes that, ultimately, remove some cars from the roads ? it leaves more space for those, like you, who have no choice but to drive.

As to the current disruption, I can see it must be frustrating, though I'd say first that it's tricky to judge a six-month trial four days into it. But more generally I'd reiterate my point: if vehement protest over any traffic-reducing scheme causes them to be abandoned then nothing gets done. And the status quo is no good. Congestion will get worse and worse anyway. It's time to argue for wider action. Every time I go down Melbourne Grove I think it's absurd it's not blocked to motor traffic at one end. It's hugely unfair on residents. Same for lots of other residential streets. But - and this is the key thing ? if councils have to reverse what you might call the easier changes (TfL are behind the CH scheme due to the quietway, so it has official backing), then *nothing* will get done. And if we're serious about making steets more pleasant, protecting kids from pollution, all of that, then it needs more radical action, not doing nothing.

[spider69]

There is a very good letter in Southwark's News Letter page, that for me and I suspect many others sums up the situation that is Champion Hill.

[PeterW]

*** Also what about the residents on Grove Lane? Are they meant to (quite literally in terms of emissions) suck it up as they are on a more main road? Champion Hill is actually a fairly wide road that isn't difficult to drive down ***

On main roads, it's a tricky one. There's an argument that they're safer for more traffic as they have more space, bus lanes, pedestrian crossing etc. The smog is an issue, especially as this is a blight caused disproportionately by richer people (more likely to drive) on poorer ones (more likely to live on busy roads). But again, I'd argue the solution is to reduce the amount of motor traffic.

As for CH, it might be OK to drive down, but it was hideous for cycling/walking. On the DKH end it's very narrow, as are the pavements, and in clear traffic the majority of cars skip over the speed bumps at well over 20mph. The Denmark Hill side, with all the pinch points, was grim to cycle along, and TfL are well aware that to designate that stretch a 'quietway' without the change would be absurd. Even walking used to be no fun as drivers fairly regularly sped the wrong side of the traffic islands to avoid having to weave between them and parked cars. It's very unsettling to be walking on the right-hand pavement and have a car whizz past your ear from behind.

[Cardelia]

PeterW Wrote:

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

> As to the current disruption, I can see it must be

> frustrating, though I'd say first that it's tricky

> to judge a six-month trial four days into it. But

> more generally I'd reiterate my point: if vehement

> protest over any traffic-reducing scheme causes

> them to be abandoned then nothing gets done. And

> the status quo is no good. Congestion will get

> worse and worse anyway. It's time to argue for

> wider action. Every time I go down Melbourne Grove

> I think it's absurd it's not blocked to motor

> traffic at one end. It's hugely unfair on

> residents. Same for lots of other residential

> streets. But - and this is the key thing ? if

> councils have to reverse what you might call the

> easier changes (TfL are behind the CH scheme due

> to the quietway, so it has official backing), then

> *nothing* will get done. And if we're serious

> about making steets more pleasant, protecting kids

> from pollution, all of that, then it needs more

> radical action, not doing nothing.

I think the point is that this isn't a traffic *reducing* scheme, unless you happen to live on Champion Hill. For everyone else, it's a traffic *increasing* scheme, and this problem had been foreseen prior to the scheme being introduced. A lot of people are being negatively affected by the traffic which has been displaced from Champion Hill. For example, buses which travel down Grove Lane towards Denmark Hill station are suffering major delays due to traffic backing up from the Denmark Hill/Windsor Walk junction. East Dulwich Grove is also full of displaced traffic and the 37/42 buses are even slower than usual. Melbourne Grove was jammed this morning because cars couldn't get onto EDG and traffic coming the other way couldn't get past due to the narrow road. Even cyclists were being forced to get off their bike and walk around the obstructions via the pavement, that's how little room there was. Whilst I agree with you that the status quo is no good, there's no point in making changes if it's going to make the overall situation worse.

It's interesting that you think TfL are backing the closure. If it's true, then I wonder how they can justify the delays caused to the 40/176/185/484 and 37/42 services which are a direct result of traffic being displaced from Champion Hill. I'd also be interested to see how buses like the 68, which head up Denmark Hill from King's, have been affected.

On a separate note, there are plenty of things which could be done to improve air quality which don't involve drastic action like closing roads. Firstly, if TfL want to encourage people to cycle more, then why haven't they expanded the cycle hire network throughout Southwark? The nearest docking station to us is in Brixton and the only reason that's there is because Lambeth council stumped up some of the money to get the cycle hire scheme extended out that far. It would be nice to think Southwark could do something similar for ED but obviously they'd rather waste our money on yellow paint and CPZ consultations. Still, that doesn't mean TfL can't do it out of their own funds, if that was truly a priority for them.

Public transport in general in this area is poor. TfL recently cut the frequency of the 176 service which resulted in more overcrowding during rush hour. It would be nice to have those buses back. And whilst I'm thinking about it, how about improving the frequency of east-west bus routes like the 37 and P4? If there was a better bus service for people who want to travel around London, rather than to/from zone 1, that could result in a decrease in traffic levels on roads like Champion Hill.

Even if the above is all too costly, there are still things that can be done to encourage people to pollute less. For example, incentives for drivers to buy electric rather than petrol/diesel cars. There are hardly any on-street charging points in Southwark which is a major hindrance for people who want to go electric. If we had more charging points we could also have more electric zipcars instead of the petrol/diesel ones we mostly have now. Sure it won't do much for congestion, but it would at least help with the pollution which is better than doing nothing. Or, doing something which makes things worse.

[Abe_froeman]

The problem with attacking only proaivte car drivers ios that the arguments lose credibility because they aren't levelled at all unneccesary particulate emissions.

I.e. not just the private cars that some people (and Southwark council incidentally) seem to dislike so much, but why not complian about all diesel vehicles. If you (and Southwark) asked for something to be done too about buses, lorries, taxis ambulances as well.

In fact road transport, (of which private cars form only a part) accounts for less than 50% of the NOX and particulates pollution released in London . Why not also go after people with wood burning stoves, bonfires etc?

If the proponents of these sorts of schemes want to take people with them they have to drop what look like personal vendettas and impose inconvenience eaully on all the polluters, not just their favourite targets.

[MarkT]

But it's not even a concerted attack on private cars. The planning is chaotic.

The rat runs criss-crossing the residential parts of East Dulwich are being opened up with double yellow lines everywhere to speed up the through traffic. Nothing is done to prioritise the buses.

Blackfriars Road used to have a bus lane each way. The bicycles now have a dedicated lane, but the buses have to join the car queue. To really mess it up for the buses, cars have been given a passing lane at every bus stop, so they can get ahead and fill the road ahead of the bus.

[AylwardS]

Reposting as a few people have said they didn?t have an opportunity to make views known in the consultation. That said its very early days of the trial

AylwardS Wrote:

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

> Champion Hill

>

> It?s a trial and there will be formal consultation

> if the trial is judged successful. Monitoring will

> take place for 9-12 months. If it affects you feed

> your experience and views into the formal

> consultation so it can be judged on current

> traffic flow / impact.

>

> The next stages given on the Council website

> https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment

> -leisure/championhilltrial/ are:

> * February - Autumn 2019 (6-9 months): Monitoring

> period, including settling in period and

> monitoring surveys, and online feedback

> questionnaire/liaison with key stakeholders

> * Late Autumn 2019: Results of monitoring analysed

> and presented and consultation on permanent

> feature

> * Winter 2019/20: Decision making-?consultation

> report and recommendations

> * Spring 2020: Make

> permanent/remove/modifications/mitigation (subject

> to statutory consultation)

>

> They also say what they want to monitor so if one

> of these affects you tell them.

>

> What do we want to monitor?

> During the trial we intend to monitor impact of

> the trial on the following:

> * Road safety/traffic dominance on Champion Hill

> * Road safety/traffic dominance around Dog Kennel

> Hill Primary School

> * Road safety at the raised table in

> Champion?Hill

> * Access needs for local residents

> * Traffic displacement onto adjacent residential

> roads

> * Traffic on Dog Kennel Hill, Grove Lane, Champion

> Park and Denmark Hill?

> I?ve only scanned it but there is a report on next

> steps which includes info on monitoring and what

> is expected from the trial. Tie back your feedback

> to this and show you?ve considered their

> objectives and the local impact.

> https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment

> -leisure/championhilltrial/supporting_documents/Co

> nsultation%20summary%20and%20next%20steps%20v1.0.p

> df

>

> A trial gives time to see how it works, what the

> impact is and how it affects you. Seems like a

> good thing to me - the final decision can be made

> on the current situation not how it was or is

> expected to be and those affected can monitor it

> too not just the Council

[mikeb]

I met a lost and very polite white van driver coming down Green Dale yesterday morning as he tried to find a way to get out of the Champion Hill maze.

Is it right that Champion Hill is now a dead end if entered from Dog Kennel Hill? I don?t think the signs make that clear.

This is nimbyism at its finest. When can I have my street turned into a private road that only residents can drive along?

[James Barber]

There were road works on Grove Lane on the lanes going in this direction. Clearly not great timing for road works as people get used to the changes on Champion Hill.

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> Grove Lane this morning. All the way down to

> Denmark Hill. To bad if you wanted to get to Herne

> Hill or Rusking Park, Kings College.The master

> plan is working. Can anyone remember it this bad

> before Champion Hill was closed.

>

> A revision of this crazy plan is needed

> immediately.

>

> They could not see this happening.

[PeterW]

***On a separate note, there are plenty of things which could be done to improve air quality which don't involve drastic action like closing roads. Firstly, if TfL want to encourage people to cycle more, then why haven't they expanded the cycle hire network throughout Southwark? ***

Access to bikes isn't really the issue. It's the fact that people don't feel safe riding them on the roads. Sure, I'd love to see the Boris Bikes reach SE London, but they're not going to get many people out of cars.

***Even if the above is all too costly, there are still things that can be done to encourage people to pollute less. For example, incentives for drivers to buy electric rather than petrol/diesel cars ***

While electric cars are better than diesel ones, they still pose a major pollution problem. One of the newer aspects of research into vehicle pollution is about the particulates which come from brake and tyre wear. Some research suggests that increases in these (as cars get bigger and heavier) has cancelled out benefits in cleaner cars.

It's not a politically easy issue, but there's no getting round the fact that if we want a healthier city, lots of people need to get out of cars for shorter journeys. And that's not even getting into the issue of inactive living.

[first mate]

My hunch would be that if you approached the Council with a request to close your street they would probably launch a consultation or even a trial.

mikeb Wrote:

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

> I met a lost and very polite white van driver

> coming down Green Dale yesterday morning as he

> tried to find a way to get out of the Champion

> Hill maze.

>

> Is it right that Champion Hill is now a dead end

> if entered from Dog Kennel Hill? I don?t think

> the signs make that clear.

>

> This is nimbyism at its finest. When can I have my

> street turned into a private road that only

> residents can drive along?

[Abe_froeman]

By far the majority of particulate and other pollutants in London do not come from private individuals driving cars.

If we want a healthier city, we need to address all causes of pollution, other wise it looks vindictive and agenda driven rather than coming from a genuine concern about air quality.

[wulfhound]

100% true Abe_froeman, but it's equally short-sighted to believe that the problems caused by over-reliance on private cars are limited to air quality.

You're welcome to think of some of those other issues as "agenda", to some of us they'd be better described as quality-of-life.

[wulfhound]

There were road works on Grove Lane on the lanes going in this direction. Clearly not great timing for road works as people get used to the changes on Champion Hill.

Plus they can't re-time the traffic signals on Champion Hill until sat nav stops sending people down it. It should be on a far shorter phase, to allow DKH extra time, but right now it needs to let everyone out who turned down it in error.

From what I understand of the Townley/EDG redesign, the junction signal timings across the area are pretty finely balanced, such that it only takes a few extra vehicles per phase to mightily screw things up over the course of half an hour. The converse is that it only needs a relatively few people to change their minds (sending their teenagers to school on public transport instead of giving them a lift, say) to alleviate the jams significantly.

[Angelina]

and soon we'll have the expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone, which aims to further reduce pollution.

seriously, there are so many cars... do you really believe every journey is critical?

[mikeb]

Wulfound, I love your optimism

Anglina - "critical" is a very binary adjective. I've not driven my car all week, but I can understand that each jounrey comes in a variety of shades from "lazy / waste of time" right through to "no alternative given the need to get to someone in the time available".

I wouldn't like to have to quantify these needs, so I'm glad there are others are find it easier.

[uncleglen]

Cars are freedom- for instance, freedom to send your child to whatever school you want

Freedom to buy some ostentatious lump of metal as some kind of status symbol...

Freedom to drive around like a lunatic and show off to your mates, and pull birds....

Freedom to- have kids, drop them off at school and then get to work yourself...you cannot do that in time if you rely on public transport.

Freedom to go where and when you want...I got a car after I turned up at the station on a Sunday with the children to find that the train did not stop at West Humble on a Sunday....

Freedom to go shopping once a week and buy everything

I, personally, made sure my kids went to schools that they could walk to...I've seen what goes on on buses in the morning.

You cannot give this to people for 50 years and then try and take it all away- especially since without the revenue from fuel the economy would probably collapse

[rendelharris]

And the freedom of children to grow up without physical and cognitive impairment? The freedom of people to live out their natural span without, as happens to 9,000 people in London every year, having it cut short by pollution? The freedom of people to walk, cycle, play and socialise outside their own homes without having their lives endangered?

Yes, people have had this "freedom" for fifty years - one would have thought that you, who's always banging on about how much better things were in the old days, would recognise that as a society we have become increasingly selfish, insular, obese and aggressive, and cars have a lot to do with that.

Oh, and total tax revenue from fuel duty amounts to approximately ?27BN per year out of total tax revenues of around ?600BN, so you're as accurate as ever - one doubts a drop in revenue of 4% or so will collapse the economy, and that's before you even start to factor in stopping new road projects, the savings to the NHS (not having to deal with so many accident victims, fewer breathing problems, fitter population etc etc) and so forth.

The experiment in mass car ownership has demonstrably and disastrously failed. It hasn't given us freedom, it's imprisoned many in their own homes, and most others are imprisoned in their tin boxes, sitting in traffic jams breathing in poison from the vehicle in front whilst telling themselves this is freedom. Madness.

[Sally Eva]

I think this Cars = Freedom is a common feeling. Personally I think the advertising promotes cars as freedom because each individual brand is virtually identical.

The problems arise because cars often do not equal freedom. The freedom to get stuck in a jam. The freedom to have your own personal liberty blocked by other people's attempts to exercise their personal liberty. The freedom to watch buses sail passed you in bus lanes, to be overtaken by cyclists. Residents get stroppy and want to infringe your freedom to drive passed their front door. Pedestrians get stroppy about speeding and pollution.

This (IMO) is why the perceived rights around driving unleash so much rage. Drivers are being impeded by maths -- the area of the circle diminishes towards the centre. We can't all drive,let alone park in central London and it's going the same way further out -- but we all feel entitled to do so. No one likes being stopped from doing whatever they want and the fact that it is impossible without polluting the planet to uninhabitability is super-annoying.

This is why (IMO) discussion of this topic arouses such anger.

[betternowthanthen]

FREEDOM= BEING ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN A ROAD THAT WAS ONCE OPENED TO DO ON IS NOW NOT OPEN FOR NO REASON AT ALL,= FREEDOM GONE

[rendelharris]

betternowthanthen Wrote:

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

> FREEDOM= BEING ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN A ROAD THAT WAS

> ONCE OPENED TO DO ON IS NOW NOT OPEN FOR NO REASON

> AT ALL,= FREEDOM GONE

Good heavens, how could one contradict such a well-reasoned capitalized argument?

[Paul Lupton]

Correct betternowthanthen

[rendelharris]

Paul Lupton Wrote:

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

> Correct betternowthanthen

Freedom's what millions upon millions of heroic people all over the world throughout the centuries have fought and died for, it's sod all to do with where you can or can't drive your motorcar.

[James Barber]

We have to get more people walking and cycling and not driving. Numerous reasons for this including - global warming, child obesity, health, economics, reducing oil dependence...We have a climate change crisis and should be acting accordingly.

Single biggest reasons people say they don't cycle or allow their children to cycle is fear / safety.

This measure is designed to make Champion Hill feel safer for people to cycle, and indeed let their children walk and cycle to school unescorted.

Clearly traffic has been reduced on Champion Hill. The queuing on Champion Park appears to have broadly returned to normal - I see it most days at some point 6-8 am and 5-7pm.

I think many more such measures are required to really transform our roads to feel sufficiently safe for the many people and families we need to make walking and cycling their normal way of getting around locally and make the step improvements in fighting climate change, reducing fuel, improving health, etc. East Dulwich, London, UK and world desperately need.

Ostrich like behaviour in rejecting changes to fight climate change should not be socially acceptable - unless proposing better alternatives to fight climate change.