South Circular roadworks - excessive disruption

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ok. So just to be clear... you think that Southwark Council and Tfl have worked closely to 'not go the extra mile' because... they hate drivers? Or is your complaint just that the work is taking too long. Because the two are quite different and it feels like there is back pedalling going on.

[first mate]

Where did I say Southwark or TFL hate drivers? 

Unintended consequences of necessary interventions can still be useful in meeting an agenda, can't they? Are you denying that there is a use of nudge tactics to get drivers out of cars?

13 weeks seems a very long time to implement a crossing on a major route.

[jazzer]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Perhaps not, but certainly they're implying that the works are being deliberately drawn out in order to cause disruption because they 'hate drivers'. If you believe this, then you really are lost down a rabbit hole.

...and the works are being undertaken by tfl I believe

What are you talking about? The changes made on Sydenham Hill were very clearly intended to address a speeding and accident hotspot. As Snowy has said, Sydenham hill is a traffic calming plan with a cycle lane as an added benefit, not  a cycle lane with traffic calming benefits.

This is not a conspiracy. There were regular, high speed crashes along that stretch of road in the past.

The Sydenham Hill cycle lane fiasco is not a benefit but a hindrance that slows traffic. I've never seen one person use it. An utter waste of the public realm. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just now, jazzer said:

The Sydenham Hill cycle lane fiasco is not a benefit but a hindrance that slows traffic. I've never seen one person use it. An utter waste of the public realm. 

It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. I've seen plenty of people using that bike lane, but as already stated the bike lane wasn't the point. The point was that it was one of top 10 worst roads in the borough for speeding. 

[jazzer]

Exactly, the cycle lane was an excuse to slow traffic, it's unnecessary because it's never used, never seen one cyclist cycle along there, EVER, EVER. It is an excuse to solve another problem.  

[Rockets]

Sydenham Hill works  has been dressed up as slowing traffic but back in 2020 when the 20mph consultation took place it was clear from the results of the survey that pro-cycle supporters threw their oar in to influence the results - a large percentage of local residents did not support the plans but were over-ridden by people not living locally who responded to the consultation.

[Penguin68]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

There is an argument that because neither you or anyone else is really in a position to decide what is or is not an unnecessary journey,

The only people able to define whether a journey is necessary or not are the people making that journey. There is no journey that any readers of this are making that I consider necessary (to me). And vice versa. As it happens, I am old, with, probably, few years left me - so any journey which I make which wastes my time is not necessary, compared with an alternative which wastes less time - for me. When coming to judge 'necessity' we are all solipsists - or liars.

[first mate]

Ah, I did not know that. A glance at the LCC and Southwark Cyclist website shows how very invested they are getting in on consultations all over the borough.

[malumbu]

Fortunately this forum is very helpful in pointing out consultations.  Thanks for this.  I don't need to be told by any group to respond, I am not a number I am a free human.

[Penguin68]

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

Have you used the new tube lines?  London Overground (as was), Elizabeth line, Jubilee Line extension. The numerous new and enlarged stations in South London?  Extensive suburban train network?

Just try comparing the number and extent of tube station north of the river against south. Obviously London north of the river is topographically larger and more populous, but even accepting that...!

Compare the North with the South Circulars.

Compare indeed the 'overground' trackways and stations north and South.

Even allowing for population and size it is very clear that the north is far better served.

The Elizabeth and Jubilee lines are both predominantly North and West serving.

The 'extensive suburban train network' South of the river is frequently closed in the late evenings and weekends,

And what 'new' stations are there South of the river - other than those serving the DLR and some docklands extensions. None really 'new'.

[Rockets]

I will start a new thread on Sydenham Hill as the results from that consultation back in 2020 are fascinating and show how pro-cycle lobby groups infiltrated the process and there are real parallels with the Peckham changes the council are proposing to make as they seem to be leaning on previous consultations that have sat on for a few years to then come back to roll out their plans on that basis.

[malumbu]

That is getting tedious.  Why are you just pursuing your political hobbyhorse?

Edited March 17 by malumbu

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I will start a new thread on Sydenham Hill as the results from that consultation back in 2020 are fascinating and show how pro-cycle lobby groups infiltrated the process and there are real parallels with the Peckham changes the council are proposing to make as they seem to be leaning on previous consultations that have sat on for a few years to then come back to roll out their plans on that basis.

For what possible reason do you want to start a thread to discuss a consultation that took place half a decade ago? 

[first mate]

7 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Fortunately this forum is very helpful in pointing out consultations.  Thanks for this.  I don't need to be told by any group to respond, I am not a number I am a free human.

Absolutely, I am sure you are.

Can you just help me understand how the consultation answers work if you respond to the question about whether you want CPZ on your street in the consultation area? How does that work if you don't live in the consultation area?

Sorry Mal, you may not know, but in terms of collating the responses and data I wonder how this info is sifted so they know what consultees living in each street within the consultation area want?
 
It is an important and relevant question because, even recently, a poster on here was advised that no street would be made CPZ if the street did not want it.

Can anyone advise?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

Absolutely, I am sure you are.

Can you just help me understand how the consultation answers work if you respond to the question about whether you want CPZ on your street in the consultation area? How does that work if you don't live in the consultation area?

Sorry Mal, you may not know, but in terms of collating the responses and data I wonder how this info is sifted so they know what consultees living in each street within the consultation area want?
 
It is an important and relevant question because, even recently, a poster on here was advised that no street would be made CPZ if the street did not want it.

Can anyone advise?

Think you've posted this on the wrong thread

[Cyclemonkey]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

The fact that people continue to post about these matters should tell you something as well. As a cycling activist, it is understandable you wish it would all just disappear, leaving you with a version of the world you prefer and that suits you best. It is just that many do not share your perspective.

As for conspiracy theories, well Malumbu has just pointed out that a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds. Is this a new thing?

I'm not a cycling activist - why would you think that? I've not posted anything  about cycling.  The name is just a name - after those little cycling monkey toys you used to get.    I'm just a person  who wants to be able to walk to local facilities without crossing a dangerous junction.

[first mate]

I apologise and withdraw my comment. I am a cyclist so absolutely no problem with that either.

We can all agree the crossing is very necessary; just wish it could be done more quickly as it will create a lot of problems.

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

For what possible reason do you want to start a thread to discuss a consultation that took place half a decade ago? 

Because it is an interesting example of how activist groups are being used to influence local decisions - how local residents are being forced out of local decision-making processes and are having to live with decisions catalysed by activist lobby groups.

If you don't like the thread you can just not contribute and sometimes accountability comes a long time after those who imposed it thought they had got away with it!

[Cyclemonkey]

Apolgy accepted.  I think you are overcooking the delays somewhat.  I have travelled past the site by bus in both directions for three days in a row now, at different times.  While there has been a little longer wait than normal,  it really isn't that bad.

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

I don't think anyone has admitted this before but good to know that this is how tax payers money is being wasted. I wonder how much the works on Sydenham Hill cost - it was so clearly, as Malumbu states, an effort to slow traffic rather than aid active travel and is probably the most ludicrous example of the nonsensical approach to road transport that our council is taking - all at a time when cycling is struggling - did anyone see the articles saying bike sales plummeted again and are now at levels not seen since the 1970s - it's clear that despite the massive investment in cycling people are not switching to it long-term.

I whole-heartedly support the need for the pedestrian crossing at that junction - I have been calling for it for a long time as that junction is so difficult to cross - my point (which I believe there is some substance to) is that council officials really are not at all interested in trying to keep traffic flowing freely and that they may actually see massive congestion as part of the "nudge" strategic approach. There is clearly no joined up thinking any more in terms of road infrastructure planning and execution of projects.

Qwant not working for you today? The expenditure and the purpose of Sydenham Hill "traffic calming, cycling and walking measures" is outlined in that traffic management order. As has been pointed out, the road was apparently in the top ten borough wide statistics for speeding. Crashmap will even show them to you. 

Given the mean average cost of a vehicle collision is something like £11k (slight) £155k (serious) and £1.1m (fatality) based on 2012 prices and Government forecasts, it will probably pay for itself quite quickly in saved costs. 

On bike sales- you should know this - you don't need to replace your bike every three years. i'm  still using a bike from the seventies, so apart from the long term n+1 issue, i don't need to buy a new one. 

Look at the classified ads for the lack of depreciation on an isla bike as an example. Compare that to a car. 

[Penguin68]

22 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

You might have shared your expertise in project management, road design, phasing of works, the numerous different organisations involved (and the associated numerous different bits of infrastructure under the roads), risk management...? 

Actually, I am somewhat experienced in project management - and, curiously, because of the coincidence of words, in traffic planning, if for telecommunications traffic. And what I do know is that, when you are disrupting infrastructure you aim for minimal disruption where there are economic consequences - as there are for traffic flow on the South Circular. You aim to work in parallel where you can, you aim to do all your planning, calculating risk management etc.  at the desk before start of work, not on the job - and you schedule disruptive work - for instance installation of new traffic islands, at times of low traffic - i.e. the evenings. The ideal - and I've seen this work on road schemes in Europe - is that you have people working on site throughout the day and evening to limit the time when roads are closed off or work causing queues.

When I had teams working on physical works I expected to see productive activity all the time (ideally) - and certainly during the working day - save when, e.g  when large items were being moved or installed and this had to wait till night-time so as not to be disruptive.

The two organisations involved, TFL for the A205 and Southwark for Lordship Lane should surely have no problems working together, and the remainder are contractors whose job it is to meet the needs of their paymasters, or lose the contract.

Good project managers are worth their weight in gold, of course, but any works department not prepared to buy-in such expertise is going to find itself wasting money hand over fist. So far there seems (based on the slow pace so far) little evidence of world, or even capital city class project management. Unless the brief was, take your time, spend as little as you can, don't worry about any disruption to the economic or social lives of the local peasants. Oh, wait....

Edited March 17 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Because it is an interesting example of how activist groups are being used to influence local decisions - how local residents are being forced out of local decision-making processes and are having to live with decisions catalysed by activist lobby groups.

If you don't like the thread you can just not contribute and sometimes accountability comes a long time after those who imposed it thought they had got away with it!

Good grief. Well I look forward to reading these ‘revelations’ in your ‘exposé’ thread now 🤣

[Rockets]

35 minutes ago, snowy said:

On bike sales- you should know this - you don't need to replace your bike every three years. i'm  still using a bike from the seventies, so apart from the long term n+1 issue, i don't need to buy a new one. 

You don't but the problems for the cycle manufacturing industry were that they believed the nonsense being pedalled by the likes of Will Norman that there was going to be a seismic shift in cycling post-Covid which has just not materialised (except for Lime bike and delivery cyclist increases) despite the huge amount of money invested in cycling infrastructure. 

 

38 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

The two organisations involved, TFL for the A205 and Southwark for Lordship Lane should surely have no problems working together

To be fair they don't have the best of track records....remember when Will Norman had to intervene after Southwark Councillors reduced TFL staff to tears after TFL dared to publish a report that said congestion at the Croxted Road junction with Norwood Road was being caused by displacement from the Dulwich Village LTNs.....

 

39 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Good grief. Well I look forward to reading these ‘revelations’ in your ‘exposé’ thread now 🤣

Be nice.....the forum rules require it! 😉

[Penguin68]

21 minutes ago, Rockets said:

To be fair they don't have the best of track records....remember when Will Norman had to intervene after Southwark Councillors reduced TFL staff to tears after TFL dared to publish a report that said congestion at the Croxted Road junction with Norwood Road was being caused by displacement from the Dulwich Village LTNs.....

Agreed the policy makers don't get on - but I'm assuming that the project managers, for an agreed project, do speak the same language and operate to the same agenda, even if that is 'hang the ratepayers!'

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Cyclemonkey said:

Apolgy accepted.  I think you are overcooking the delays somewhat.  I have travelled past the site by bus in both directions for three days in a row now, at different times.  While there has been a little longer wait than normal,  it really isn't that bad.

I hope things are as you say. If impacts limited then all well and good. Fingers crossed it continues.

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Think you've posted this on the wrong thread

Yes, you are right, sorry about that.