Southwark Council proposals for LL/NthX Rd junction

[maxxi]

Received a glossy leaflet detailing the proposed building out of pavements on LL either side of NthX Rd to provide cycle parking and to "improve inter-visibility", also proposals to reduce width of pelican crossing, raise entry table on NthX Rd.,completely resurface road all along this section of LL, removal of short-stay parking bay north of pelican crossing to give buses more room to pull in to bus stop.

A series of vital improvements or a waste of time? (apart from resurfacing as the lane is cracked to buggery along there)

[DadOf4]

any idea if any of these plans are documented online ?

[Otta]

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/file/11186/north_cross_road_lordship_lane_junction_improvements

[maxxi]

Booklet quotes this url - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200024/consultations but can't find it on there - you may know better how to find it.

Failing that there is a contact name, email and no. for "more information" - Mahama Razak 020 7525 3249 / [email protected]

eta- follow Otta's link.

[James Barber]

The idea is to make the entrance to the market more appealing while reducing crashes.

It's another element to the Living Streets study produced around 2007/8 hat involved a number of residents.

Please do resond to the consultation.

[Nigello]

The Goodrich/LL junction ought to be looked at and improved ahead of NXR. It's really hard to feel comfortable even when creeping out of GR. James, any thoughts?

[first mate]

James,

How many crashes have there been in that location?

I always feel the market is quite busy enough so not sure it needs to be still more appealing. Is the purpose of improving the appeal to bring in greater numbers or just to provide a better experience?

[James Barber]

Hi Nigello, firest mate,

Sadly we have other junctions with more crashes than GR/LL.

The NXR/LL has a number of pedestrian movements but primarily these works are to make this junction more pleasant and a better experience.

Hard to be precise about number of collisions as crashes often go unreported even when people injured. But the crashmap website shows a number of reported crashes at this junction and the Pelican.

[MarkE]

Is there a dedicated form on the Southwark website where I can 'have my say'? Link on the list of consultations just runs through to that pdf as far as I can tell...

Ta

[first mate]

James where is this website and who runs it. Since you have seen it can you say how many crashes in that location? It's just good to be clear about the rationale.

[first mate]

Just checked crash map and only one serious incident in last 9 years at that location, and no incidents since 2008. The map also shows, as you say James, many other streets close by with similar problems or worse, so safety is not the real reason I guess.

Have their been complaints about the quality of experience at the junction for market goers?

[Penguin68]

Or is this just about making car ownership and use in ED increasingly difficult, as part of the unstated war on cars being waged in the borough (still no resolution or clarification of the double yellows on dropped kerbs, I note)?

[Slocky]

Seems to be more about improving the amenity for pedestrians and cyclists, which can only be a good thing. And if that encourages a few more people out of their cars and onto foot or bike, then everyones a winner.

[alice]

are there proposed costings?

[bemusED]

Surprised the council feels compelled to consult about individual instances such as this.

I would have been more encouraged to see a consultation for all locations in East Dulwich where side roads meet a main road such as Lordship Lane. Tightening up the pavement widths, slowing down cars and aiding pedestrian movement is surely a good thing.

[first mate]

Yes, but why now and why here in particular? Slowing down cars will also slow down buses and not everyone wants or is able to get on bike. I don't feel narrowing a main road is necessarily a good thing either

[worldwiser]

This seems like more of an aesthetic exercise than any of the other cited ambitions. Start with real problems like junction of ED Grove and LL and afterwards fix the things which will give Southwark adequate excuse to raise pitch rents.

[healey]

Looks okay to me.

[teddy]

Why so many cycle stands? They are best spread out every, say 20 metres, not squeezed into one space. You can do it right outside a key cyclist destination, this is not one of them.

[first mate]

I may be way off but I wonder if this has anything to do with the proposed M&S and flats above and possible planning conditions- remember how there was all that stuff about no pressure on parking because everyone will walk or come on bikes/ public transport? Hard to know why a sudden need for all this investment at LL/Nx.

[James Barber]

hi Alice,

?50,000 which seemed very steep. I'm hopeful officers can achieve the works for far less.

Hi Bemused,

Southwark Council can't really consult on all side roads being changed along Lordship Lane if it didn't have the money or plans to make such changes. Consultations have to be timed around real proposed works to be legally valid.

Hi first mate,

Why now? Because the entrance to North Cross Road looks a mess. Next year we hope to improve LL pavements. Potentially the junction of Whateley Road with LL.

Only slowing down proposed is of cars entering or leaving NCR. LL is already 20mph.

Hi worldwiser,

EDG/LL. we've organised a full entry treatment, LL signalled crossing to break the traffic flow up and ensure gaps for people crossing EDG, EDG and LL are now both 20mph. If you have specific thoughts how to make this junction better I'm all ears.

Hi teddy,

please respond to the consultation stating that. The number of cycle stand on the north side look odd as they will block sight lines. I suspect council officials are trying to deter people crossing at these points. I did point thiso ut on a site visit but useful if others point out the issue.

Hi first mate,

it has nothing to do with M&S and flats above. I can state this as I applied for the project to take place over a year ago. It has just taken an inordinate amount of time to flow through the council system.

I mentioned it in January:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,1260331#msg-1260331

[first mate]

James, who says it looks a mess? If you were the person that asked for these works to be done you would have known that safety was a marginal issue yet at first you offered this as justification along with the aesthetic point.

[intexasatthe moment]

Inclined to agree with first mate .And it doesn't look a mess to me .

[bonaome]

Doesn't look a mess to me. When the market is on, the junction is closed off with the barriers. There's obviously no safety concern as there is no record of incidents at the junction. It's a completely pointless waste of money as far as I can see.

[first mate]

So, on that basis, you have to wonder what the real agenda driving this is?

Sometimes it feels like there is this overarching vision for ED that is held in the brains of certain Councillors, which is not shared with voters, but where that vision is achieved piecemeal by driving through changes by whatever means possible. Sorry if I sound deeply cynical.