Proposal Lordship Lane walkability

[pbg212]

Agreed this isn’t anti car apart from those who need to make it that. 

 

So my idea is that that there are parts of the sidewalk that are uncomfortably and often precariously narrow for those with prams, wheelchairs or unsteady on their feet.   So, for the area between The Lordship Pub and the Roundabout, reduce to 3 traffic lanes (2 for driving, 1 bus stop/parking) with the bus/parking to alternate sides so works for both and south bound traffic. The space would have to come from somewhere and that would be current on street parkjng. 

The footpath that would make the area more accessible for everyone (not just the 78% / 95% who didn’t drive); so nicer for all (local or travelled) who visit;  and would encourage more shopping as would improve the ability for locals to do essential shopping more easily, and provide fewer pinch-points so space to take it slow for those who are wobbly, or are visiting for the vibe and non-essential shopping.

So, Would a nicer place make more people want to visit (and a small percentage use a car needing to park)? Yes. To make that viable would need more parking bays to be timed, while some people live and work on LL, it isn’t suitable for long period parking given the volume of commercial units and resulting foot/vehicle traffic. 

While the novelty of a car free day for shopping is high (even regular ones like north cross markets), i think more interesting is how to solve ongoing day-to-day issues. 

Edited yesterday at 08:29 by pbg212
Phrasing

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You could improve traffic flow on the lane considerably by removing half a dozen parking spaces, and making the bus lane 24/7.

But then what of the Council's stated plan to balance the needs of residents parking with that of shoppers in cars, stating it would create paid for parking spaces on LL to effect this? At the time, earlier in the summer I said this would affect buses and those of you in favour of the CPZ etc were completely silent on the matter.

I am afraid all this does look like a considered tactical approach- get CPZ in and tell people what they want to hear, then a few months later launch the idea of pavement widening and removing parking on the high street.

 

Edited yesterday at 08:58 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

@first mate you regularly address questions for the council to me. I know you're convinced that I work for them in some way (along with anyone who doesn't automatically oppose all change), but I don't. I have no interest in creating more parking on the Lane - you can tell this because I've never called for it, and have agued for removing some parking.

Edited yesterday at 09:49 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets dubious claim that 22% of shoppers on Lordship Lane drive there, is based on a typically biased (mis)interpretation of a 10 year old survey, so not unreasonable to provide the relevant context for those who haven’t read it themselves.

Here we go again…..goodness me…relentless. Zero point trying to have a conversation when it gets skewed like this.
 

So, maybe let’s just encourage the council to run another survey as I do not think they have done one for 10 years so we can get an accurate picture. When I get a chance I will also post the survey the council did 10 years ago so you can all see for yourselves what was said.

[first mate]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@first mate you regularly address questions for the council to me. I know you're convinced that I work for them in some way (along with anyone who doesn't automatically oppose all change), but I don't. I have no interest in creating more parking on the Lane - you can tell this, because I've agued for removing some parking on this thread.

But, as I said, neither you, Malumbu, Snowy or March commented when I expressed reservations about how the council said it wanted to allay potential LL trader fears about loss of business re a new CPZ, by creating paid for parking along LL.

Given now the great enthusiasm from you all to remove LL parking and widen pavements, I do find your silence on the above, earlier in the year, odd.

Edited yesterday at 09:11 by first mate

[Sue]

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Here we go again…..goodness me…relentless. Zero point trying to have a conversation when it gets skewed like this

How is the conversation "getting skewed" by somebody pointing out that you are bringing in a ten year old survey to try to back up your views?

And also pointing out some issues with your interpretation of the survey wording?

It seems to me that it is you who is  making this personal.

It is you yourself who gets into  constant arguments on other threads with posters when they point out the flaws in your reasoning!

Edited yesterday at 09:29 by Sue

[first mate]

But, if that is the only survey available then not unreasonable to quote, surely?

I hope Rockets links to it so anyone so minded can read the information and figures for themselves.

I am trying to make sense of the Council's recently stated CPZ plans to provide short-term paid for parking bays on residential streets and along LL to facilitate shoppers in cars, thus impeding bus/traffic flow, against Earl's apparent assertion that not many shoppers visit the area in cars. 

[Sue]

34 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, if that is the only survey available then not unreasonable to quote, surely?

I hope Rockets links to it so anyone so minded can read the information and figures for themselves.

It would be reasonable to quote an old survey if the circumstances when it was produced were the same as current circumstances.

In this case they apparently aren't.

Perhaps Rockets could provide the link? Then indeed we can all decide for ourselves whether the survey findings are relevant in 2025, and (more importantly) relevant to the subject of this thread.

Edited yesterday at 10:44 by Sue
Adding info

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Sue said:

How is the conversation "getting skewed" by somebody pointing out that you are bringing in a ten year old survey to try to back up your views?

Errr...because the last time the council surveyed Lordship Lane shops 22% said they had driven....that is all...goodness me

P.S. that was the last time the council ran such a survey.....and it is here (I am out and about so cannot attach): Source: Southwark Council https://share.google/5ZZZbi6iG3BDEAx5j

Edited yesterday at 11:43 by Rockets

[Sue]

Just now, Rockets said:

Errr...because the last time the council surveyed Lordship Lane shops 22% said they had driven....that is all...goodness me

P.S. that was the last time the council ran such a survey.....

So could you post a link to this ten year old survey, please, so that we can read the whole of the context to this figure,  exactly what questions were asked, what the sample was, etc?

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

let’s just encourage the council to run another survey as I do not think they have done one for 10 years so we can get an accurate picture

I agree with this. Would be interesting to see.

[Pugwash]

   I believe those particular shop frontages belong to the freeholders rather than to the council and that the council's bit of the pavement is the narrow uneven bit with the massive trees planted in it.

Frontage areas are usually set out in the lease/rental agreement but they need to obtain a licence from Southwark to install tables and chairs outside. I cannot see Southwark agreeing for tables and chairs placed right up the edge of the road.    Recall some time ago that council ordered an establishment  to remove table and chairs as they had not been granted a licence. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

32 minutes ago, Pugwash said:

   I believe those particular shop frontages belong to the freeholders rather than to the council and that the council's bit of the pavement is the narrow uneven bit with the massive trees planted in it.

Frontage areas are usually set out in the lease/rental agreement but they need to obtain a licence from Southwark to install tables and chairs outside. I cannot see Southwark agreeing for tables and chairs placed right up the edge of the road.    Recall some time ago that council ordered an establishment  to remove table and chairs as they had not been granted a licence. 

 

You can see the line along the Oddono's / Moxon's stretch where the shop owned frontages end and the pavement begins. The pavement is narrow for what is a very busy stretch at particular times and were there are pinch points around trees. You can also see in the picture below, why buses struggle to pass each other / cause congestion because of cars in the bus lane.

Edited yesterday at 15:54 by Earl Aelfheah

[CPR Dave]

That footpath looks wider than most others in the area.

Works well in practice. Leave it be I'd say. If youv have a problem with the trees you should lobby the council to remove them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The space outside of Jades, where that tree is is extremely narrow as are many other bits, and the whole stretch is packed at weekends / very slow going. 

Edited yesterday at 16:41 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

But, is there a requirement for speed walking? Surely, slower mooching is okay, in parts. Also, you just know that if the pavements are widened, the greater the temptation for cyclists and scooters to use that to get round traffic on the roads, or to ahem 'park' hire bikes, meaning pedestrians gain very little.

Edited yesterday at 16:48 by first mate

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, Sue said:

So could you post a link to this ten year old survey, please, so that we can read the whole of the context to this figure,  exactly what questions were asked, what the sample was, etc?

Did you read it, what do you think?

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The space outside of Jades, where that tree is is extremely narrow as are many other bits, and the whole stretch is packed at weekends / very slow going. 

You may have to pause occasionally but it's hardly the end of the world and no different to most other high streets at a weekend.

[march46]

The experience as a pedestrian would significantly improve if the pavement was widened. I don’t understand why some here are against suggestions to improve things for pedestrians. 

[malumbu]

10 hours ago, pbg212 said:

While the novelty of a car free day for shopping is high (even regular ones like north cross markets), i think more interesting is how to solve ongoing day-to-day issues. 

Agree  on priorities but not sure what you mean by novelty of car free days, they've been around a long time, in fact some street markets on the high street such as Deptford still exist.

My point made may times is that the UK has been too carcentric for the last 70 years making our roads /pavements more pedestrian friendly is a good thing,  Going off on a tangent parking - legally and illegally - on the pavement gets my goat.  Particularly prelevant over the border in Lewisham, and the cars driving on the pavement on Honor Oak today to get round the closed road (Thames Water just again) was shocking.

[first mate]

I am trying to think of local examples of pavement widening where I feel my experience as a pedestrian has significantly improved and to be frank cannot think of any. I do not walk to places more than I used or less than I used to.

In places where streets are closed to cars, the car traffic has been replaced by e-bike and motorcycle users intermittently whizzing along instead- as a pedestrian you still have to be traffic aware, it is just a different type of traffic. Only these vehicles may also veer on and off pavements at times.

On wider pavements there is a much greater chance of what used to be pedestrian only space being taken up by discarded hire bikes or young ones scooting/ cycling with their parents.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

I don’t understand why some here are against suggestions to improve things for pedestrians. 

I don’t why some on here take every conversation as a means to try and attack car use. Funny how no-one has anything to say about the variety of sensible improvement suggestions for Lordship Lane yet are fixating on widening the pavement by removing car parking spaces. I mean, has anyone got stuck outside Odonno’s for more than a few seconds….or has anyone been stranded there for days…….;-)

[Sue]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Did you read it, what do you think?

No, because I have been out much of today and only just got back.

Until you wrote that, apparently two hours ago,  I didn't see that you had edited a post you had already written to include it, and I don't usually scroll back through threads in case somebody has added something to an existing post!

I will have a read. Thank you for posting it.

[march46]

The pavement widening along Grove Vale has made a huge improvement to an area with heavy footfall. It seems to be well received by the traders I’ve spoken with, especially the new zebra crossing. 

[first mate]

The new planting areas are slowly filling with rubbish and weeds- not a great look. As I have said before, this is now a great cut through for delivery motorbikes and e-bikes and I would not say all adhere to 20mph or stay off the newly widened pedestrian areas.

Cannot imagine what it will be like if and when the massive new student accommodation off Melbourne and the licensed shop go through.

Further up towards Melbourne South a widened pavement area is full of bikes of various types and so badly designed that in heavy rain it floods and most cannot be walked through.

Edited 8 hours ago by first mate

[march46]

The planting areas are due to be properly planted this month, although in the meantime I’m enjoying the sunflowers that have sprung up in the one at the end of Melbourne Grove! 
 

Have you raised your concerns about the flooding you mention to the council? I find Highways act quickly when these things are raised - they recently sorted the Grove Vale puddle spot outside Goose Green School I notice.