New traffic calming and cycle lane on Sydenham Hill

[legalalien]

For info as likely to be a route used by ED residents:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50029845&OptionNum=0

Apparently consultation done in Feb/ March 2020 with flyers to residents within 50m and something on the website - I think most people had other things on their mind!

As I interpret the final drawings they’ve decided not to go for the floating bus stops that Southwark Cyclists were lobbying for, which as a pedestrian/ bus user I’m glad of as am not a big fan.

[Penguin68]

I particularly enjoyed the weasel comment in the report "The majority of residents in Southwark do not own a car, we are providing facilities for those walking, cycling and using public transport. There are still locations to park for those who need to use a car." - which is comparing the flat, highly public transport supplied inner London part of the borough with a part so far south, hilly and without good public transport that it is virtually not in Southwark at all - and whose car ownership (and needs) much more closely allies to the outer London boroughs it is surrounded by.

But then lies and obfuscations are what we expect from this source.

[Rockets]

Looks like a sensible suggestion - speed is a big issue on Sydenham Hill.

You're right - the council really needs to stop using the "most Southwark residents don't own a car" nonsense as they know car ownership is very high in the south of the borough due to the poor PTAL scores (I think it is around 70%) and they keep trotting their stat out as if it applies across the whole borough. I agree it's more spin to help justify any measure they put in but has zero relevance to local traffic issues and very much falls into the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" category of council misinformation. And remember, they originally said it is areas in the north of the borough that are more suited to LTNs etc because of the plethora of other transport options available to residents.....

[borderpaul]

I cycle occasionally up/down and across Sydenham Hill. There is a cycle lane on part of it and a lot of cars park on it especially by the new flats where motorists are more in fear of private parking restrictions than council restrictions so segregation/rediweld curb in this case is good.

Speeding is generally not such an issue where the road is used by cars to park on both sides or near the speed camera.

I am not sure that removing parking will reduce speeding. I would expect it to increase with motorists not having to worry about parked cars or cyclists.

I do think the main requirement for a cycle lane is on the hill part rather than the ridge/plateau. I have always found this the most hazardous, and often a major bottleneck for cars/bikes/buses because of parking on both sides combined with the speed going down and effort required going up as a cyclist.

[malumbu]

It's a race track. Average speed cameras please. Brenchley Gardens to. Government needs to encourage this to be the norm, rather than kow towing to the entitled motorists lobby. Yes national government

[malumbu]

It's a race track. Average speed cameras please. Brenchley Gardens too. Government needs to encourage this to be the norm, rather than kow towing to the entitled motorists lobby. Yes national government

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Most Southwark residents don't own a car. Most journeys in Southwark aren't made by car.

East Dulwich is one of only 4 wards in Southwark where most households have a car: 41.5% of households in East Dulwich don't have a car. It's not because of PTAL scores - it's because those 4 wards are richer and/or because there is more off-street parking and free (council-provided) onstreet parking.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89832/Appendix%25202%2520Car%2520Ownership.pdf

[Cyclemonkey]

Sydenham Hill desperately needs some traffic calming, people drive far too fast on it.

[Rockets]

Most Southwark residents don't own a car. Most journeys in Southwark aren't made by car.

East Dulwich is one of only 4 wards in Southwark where most households have a car: 41.5% of households in East Dulwich don't have a car. It's not because of PTAL scores - it's because those 4 wards are richer and/or because there is more off-street parking and free (council-provided) onstreet parking.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89832/Appendix%25202%2520Car%2520Ownership.pdf

 

So the council constantly rolling out the most Southwark residents don't own a car is somewhat misleading then when applied to areas like East Dulwich because most residents of Southwark in this area do own a car?

It's a bit like saying most Southwark residents live within walking distance of a tube....when it is clearly not the case as it only applies to those living in the north of the borough (but where the population density is higher).

[Rockets]

Most Southwark residents don't own a car. Most journeys in Southwark aren't made by car.

East Dulwich is one of only 4 wards in Southwark where most households have a car: 41.5% of households in East Dulwich don't have a car. It's not because of PTAL scores - it's because those 4 wards are richer and/or because there is more off-street parking and free (council-provided) onstreet parking.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89832/Appendix%25202%2520Car%2520Ownership.pdf

 

So the council constantly rolling out the most Southwark residents don't own a car is somewhat misleading then when applied to areas like East Dulwich because most residents of Southwark in this area do own a car?

It's a bit like saying most Southwark residents live within walking distance of a tube....when it is clearly not the case as it only applies to those living in the north of the borough (but where the population density is higher).

And there is a direct correlation between PTAL scores and car ownership figures - the council cites it as part of there reasoning for higher car ownership in the Dulwich area due to the poor PTAL scores.

[malumbu]

OMG yet another thread I will have to leave as it will be invaded by those with one agenda, to have a go at Southwark about LTNs

Precious!

I'm skulking off back to the lounge as it feels safer there. 😟

[Spartacus]

I'm curious, with the big hills leading up to Sydenham Hill, is it popular with cyclists up there ?

Traffic calming is possibly needed which is independent of my question.

[first mate]

Popular with a certain type of cyclist, and in the minority, I'd think. Possibly club members.

You have to be pretty fit to cycle up Lordship Lane and then further up Sydenham Rise. Hands up, on the rare occasions I have tried I have had to dismount and walk.

[Moovart]

No problem with a pedal assist bike

[Twoddle]

You wanna try Canonbie Rd. haha.

[Spartacus]

My question relates to the simple point that if cyclists don't use it, will a cycle lane be good value for money ?

As said, I can see the need in some traffic calming, but is there justification for a cycle lane?

A slightly more expensive, but possibly ground breaking could be to reopen the old train tunnels under Sydenham Hill and make them cycle and walking highways, allowing cyclists to avoid the hills to get to the other side of Crystal Palace.

[malumbu]

I've debated the need for cycling infrastructure in the lounge in the past. My view remains that segregation should not always be needed. National and local government, and many cycling groups disagree. If vehicles stuck to 20 MPH, and treated other road users equally, there would not be so a strong case for segregation.

Cyclists in bus lanes, and restricting traffic to create quiet ways, is generally a good thing. I've lived and cycled in the area for decades so used to hills, and when my time comes I'm sure I will go to electric assistance

On the point of the thread, traffic speeds apart from by the camera. Like Brenchley a straight road and many can't resist putting their foot down. I prefer other measures to physical means for slowing traffic, even though it means greater surveillance

[borderpaul]

I don't think the ridge part of Sydenham Hill gets a lot of cyclists from my experience of cycling across it.

It is a local route feeding into the main cycling routes of College Rd or Kirkdale/Hill part of Sydenham Hill/London Road. There are 2 bus routes there that probably amount to more person journeys than are carried out by bike.

It is not very headline grabbing but as many people have said installing speed cameras that measure average speed on that stretch would be the most sensible thing to do.

If there is a need to spend money on a cycle lane then put it on the Hill part of Sydenham Hill where there is a greater need.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not sure how anyone could really object to this. But I guess the usual pro-car dominance types will instinctually oppose.

[Spartacus]

No one is objecting, they are simply questioning if it is a justified scheme giving how many cyclists actually use the route.

If it's not justified then the money could be better spent elsewhere.

[exdulwicher]

No one is objecting, they are simply questioning if it is a justified scheme giving how many cyclists actually use the route.

If it's not justified then the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

You don't look at the number of cyclists using a route before considering segregated infrastructure. If anything, it's the exact opposite - people aren't currently using it as a cycle route because of (perceptions of) road danger - add in proper infrastructure / remove the danger and it'll be used.

In the same way that you don't say "no wheelchair users are trying to access this building, we won't bother building a ramp" or "no-one is swimming across this river, we won't bother building a bridge"

The infrastructure is the enabler.

There have long been issues with that road anyway - people routinely speed down it, slam the brakes on for the 20mph cameras and then charge off after it. Wide road, good sightlines sort of tempts speeding. Narrowing the road using cycle lanes would solve a lot of the speed issues as well.

[malumbu]

One part of the road deffo would support a cycle road is going up the hill from the Horniman. It's a slog and the road surface us poor. The cycle routes by Horniman are a mess too and I don't like any arrangement where it takes longer to do a junction by bike.

[Spartacus]

Ex

People aren't using it simply because to get to it they have to slog up hills either side

It's not a case of cyclists wanting to use it but it's dangerous, it's a genuine concern that even when installed they still won't use it unless they have the legs of the incredible hulk to get up the hills to get to it.

As I suggested earlier, other schemes may benefit cycling more

[Rockets]

The big challenge is that so much money is being spent on cycle infrastructure on the basis of "build it and they will come". And that makes sense in many areas but the increase in cycling has not been anywhere close to what it needs to be to justify the negative impact on other forms of transport and the policy needs to shift to proper assessment of what happens to other modes of transport like walking, driving and buses when so much roadspace is dedicated to cyclists.

Remember in the pandemic and Will Norman stating that there would be a 10x increase in cycling - it just hasn't happened and growth isn't happening at a rate that suggests 10x will ever be achieved - the recent figures of a 25% increase in cycling compared to pre-Covid levels draws that into the harsh realities of daylight given the amount of money that has been spent and the hundreds of new miles of roadspace given over exclusively to bikes?

It does very much seem that the cycle lobby has hijacked the post Covid transport discussion and the Mayor's office and councils have been drawn into it and have prioritised cycling disproportionately over other modes of transport. As soon as equal weighting is given to all the better for everyone.

[malumbu]

Just looking back on this thread, at least three of you have an axe to grind against cyclists. Why? Most of us aren't extremists, many of us even occasionally drive a car but are happy with measures to promote active travel. Shame some have some fixed views.

I've cycled up and down Sydenham hill and never belonged to a cycle club. But even if I did why would that matter!