Cycling Quietway - E&C to Crystal Palace Consultation

[Jezza]

A consultation by Southwark Council has now opened on the proposed quietway from the E&C to Crystal Palace which is proposed to run through the area south along Greendale and then along Calton Avenue and Turney Road. To make it easier to comment, they have created a map that (after registering - it genuinely takes 30 seconds) you can just click on to make comments.

http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkquietways/

Hope of interest

[slarti b]

Mmmm..... Yet another grand scheme which makes politicians look and feel good but IMHO have serious flaws.

I thought Quietways were meant to follow direct back-street routes, through parks, along waterways or tree-lined streets

If so why send this Quietway though 3 busy road junctions and the centre of Dulwich Village? I certainly dont consider Calton and Turney Roads to be back streets. Based on the current Townley Road\East Dulwich Grove fiasco the scheme will ban right hand turns that cross the Quietway, eg Calton\Court Lane into Dulwich Village North, Turney Road in to DV South and similar at Croxted Road junction. I can see extensive measures needed to make Calton and Turney suitable since they are narrow.

I am also puzzled by the "consultation" It is titled "stakeholder engagement" and seems to be asking for comments about particular points on the route rather than a proper consultation about a defined scheme. Will this lead on to a proper consultation once proposals are drawn up or is it just another EDG\Townley shambles.

So, definitely worth registering comments otherwise in a years time you will be presented with a scheme that has been "supported by the local community" ( actually non-local cycling zealots). What are the odds on parking ban in Turney Road to allow a dedicated cycle lane, One way in Calton Avenue, banned right turns everywhere?

What is rationales for these Quietways anyway? How many "less confident" cyclists will want to go from Elephant & Castle (actually Waterloo, it bypasses E&C) to Crystal Palace?

Finally, there is quite an overlap with the Southwark Spine, are these schemes being considered jointly?

[dulwichquine]

Good post by Slarti. On current EDG junction plans, the build out from pavement on Townley Road looks like it will mean coaches physically unable to turn left into EDG. So where will they all go ? Calton Avenue!

[Townleygreen]

Slarti said "...What is rationales for these Quietways anyway? How many "less confident" cyclists will want to go from Elephant & Castle (actually Waterloo, it bypasses E&C) to Crystal Palace? "

Well, if the Quietways do their job, there will be large numbers of less confident cyclists using this route!

Including lots of schoolchildren on their way to and from school.

Surely a good thing?

Or, Slarti, would you prefer that they continue to be driven to school in ridiculous "Chelsea tractors" as at present (in many cases).

Ridiculous comment that helps to undermine your argument.

[BrandNewGuy]

It's not ridiculous. Giving only partial 'safe' routes and 'bays' for nervous cyclists is not sensible. At some point, they'll come out into 'normal' traffic. What do you propose then?

Nervous cyclists need help, experience and, if necessary training. What they don't need are dangerously partial, unthought out 'solutions'.

[Townleygreen]

These will be and are thought out.

They will improve our environment - reduce pollution - fewer cancers and asthma.

Can't you see any benefits?

Why are you - apparently - so obsessed with cars?

Think of our children!

[Townleygreen]

Look at how pleasant Dutch and Danish cities are with cyclists and pedestrians favoured over the wretched car, for goodness sake!

[Townleygreen]

Here's some more detail on what the Quietways will be like. I've found the one from Waterloo to Greenwich to be really inspiring - the bits I've seen so far that is!

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/quietways-if-you-want-to-know-what.html

[Charles Notice]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Look at how pleasant Dutch and Danish cities are

> with cyclists and pedestrians favoured over the

> wretched car, for goodness sake!

When will people realise that London is not the above.

Holland Denmark build new purpose built cities for push bikes. They are not London.

There are just as many cars but development has been going on before and after WW2'to accommodate people, cars and bikes.

Please visit and then make comments from a first hand point of view. I know both

London does not lend its self readily to bikes

[Townleygreen]

Charles N said "Holland Denmark build new purpose built cities for push bikes"

Not true. If you look at photos from the 70s, their cities look just as crowded, polluted and dominated by cars as ours do today.

Total myth!

They decided it had to stop and changed their cities accordingly. We can do the same, and Quietways are an important step along that road.

Don't be a dinsoaur, Charles!

[Charles Notice]

After knowing Holland for over 45 years I will bow to your greater knowledge.

Perhaps things would improve if people listened to others. Politicans and Cllrs note

[Green Goose]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Mmmm..... Yet another grand scheme which makes

> politicians look and feel good but IMHO have

> serious flaws.

>

Another excellent post slarti b.

I had a look at the entire route for this Quietway and there are no less than 47 junctions and features that require costly modification.

With the EDG/Townley Road junction alone costing ?220,000, one can only be horrified at the overall cost! Millions!!

Southwark will say it will be funded by Central Govt, but Govt have to fund it by borrowing which, as you will have realised, will be added to the fiscal deficit and paid for by taxes.

It is a TOTAL nonsense that will only please a tiny minority.

[wulfhound]

@ Green Goose, if you mean by tiny minority those that cycle in today's conditions: well, yes. But it's said that you don't measure the need for a bridge by counting how many people are swimming across the river... spending money on existing cyclists doesn't really benefit anyone, it has to be about enabling more people to take it up for routine journeys. Does it cost money? Sure, but how much are air pollution or obesity costing the NHS?

@ slarti B, the reason for Elephant as the destination (indeed, how many "less confident" cyclists would want to end up at London's second-most-infamous killer roundabout after Bow) is that in Central London, they're putting in Segregated Superhighways, which are (supposed to be) full Dutch-style bike lanes through the heart of the city, from Elephant to Kings Cross and from Tower Bridge to Hyde Park. So it's natural that lots of people from the inner southern suburbs, probably as far as Crystal Palace, will want to be able to get there. DV to Embankment is a distance a young child could cycle both ways, and probably quicker than getting the train. Not to mention healthier and less expensive.

Judging from the Waterloo-Greenwich plans above, "removing parking to create a cycle lane" is the polar opposite of the plans. Quietways are supposed to be about calming roads down to the point that 8 year olds can cycle with whatever traffic's left. On some of that Waterloo route it might even work.

What I don't understand though, is that this route overlaps 80% with existing route LCN23 (good in places, crap in others) and doesn't even use all of the good bits. And it runs parallel with the "Southwark Spine" which is a seperate consultation on a different web site. I'd much rather they did one of the routes thoroughly - the whole thing built to a standard an 8 year old kid can ride with her granny - than both of them half-cooked. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, as BrandNewGuy alludes to.. granted it will be a long time before all of London's roads are as cycle friendly as Amsterdam, but at least the designated routes ought to be. If they're not, I'm not sure what the point of designating a route is.

[Townleygreen]

Grren Goose, you are horrified at the cost of this scheme!

I too am horrified - at the proposed spending of BILIONS on new road imporvements (announced by Dave C last month) and HS2.

So a few millions on much-needed cycling and walking infrasturcture is very reasonable in comparison.

[BrandNewGuy]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> So a few millions on much-needed cycling and

> walking infrasturcture is very reasonable in

> comparison.

But not if it's badly planned, unco-ordinated and rides roughshod over local conditions.

[Jeremy]

With our roads jammed and our public transport creaking under the strain, encouraging more, safe, cycling is a good thing. But I'd like to see it done properly as in the aforementioned cities, with properly segragated cycle lanes. The problem is... how could we fit them in, as well as pavements and bus lanes? Despite the car-haters, we will always need cars/vans/lorries on our roads..

[nunhead_man]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

........................ Despite the car-haters,

> we will always need cars/vans/lorries on our

> roads..

Need? For an able bodied person, why not cycle to the shops and not drive? Heavy shopping? Use a cargo bike or trailer!

We could make do with far fewer short journeys by motor vehicles - and we would be fitter and not fatter too

[Jeremy]

When I said "we will always need", I didn't mean that everybody needs a car! I meant that there will always be a need for some vehicles.

Personally I do not cycle as I consider it unsafe... if there was better infrastructure I'm sure I'd change my tune.

[henryb]

You only really need cycle lanes on busy roads. I think the point of quietways is they try to stay to less busy roads where possible. I use the 22 route a lot and it is a lot better than going the way you would by car. The problem segregated routes is they are a lot more expensive to implement and like you say take more space from other road users. Quietways are a good alternative if implemented correctly. I guess that is the point of the consultation. Clearly the Townley/EDG junction needs a rethink but the rest doesn't seem so bad. I used to cycle some of that route when I lived that way. I welcome it being made safer and quicker for cyclists.

[BrandNewGuy]

nunhead_man Wrote:

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

> Need? For an able bodied person, why not cycle to

> the shops and not drive? Heavy shopping? Use a

> cargo bike or trailer!

But what about all those home deliveries? And deliveries to shops? And skips? And, when it comes to the local private schools, the perpetual round of builders and scaffolders? To suggest that London can do without vans, lorries and other essential vehicles is nonsense.

And does it follow that more people using bikes rather than cars makes the roads safer? There's clearly much more to it than that, as there were far more pedestrian deaths and injuries back in the 70s and 80s when there were fewer cars on the road.

FWIW I rarely use the car and use public tranpsort nearly all the time. And what's more, we didn't drive our children around either apart from when they were very small.

[Townleygreen]

No one is suggesting, BNG, that "London can do without vans, lorries and other essential vehicles..." !!

Quietways are an attempt to encourage cycling from groups that at present find cycling too dangerous.

[BrandNewGuy]

You questioned "we will always need cars/vans/lorries on our roads.." and I disagreed with you.

As I mentioned before, cycle routes will always, at some points (possibly many), throw nervous cuclists into regular traffic. I'm questioning whether or not that's a wise approach.

[jimbo1964]

At the moment I use the quiet route from Peckham to Burgess Park. That's fantastic. I'm a very experienced cyclist but being able to avoid both the Walworth Road and Old/New Kent roads makes my commute so much nicer and safer. I'd welcome any expansion of this network.

[Townleygreen]

BNG, no you are wrong (again!) that is the point of Quietways - they give long, safe routes through the city. Obviously if you then want to go somewhere else, yes, you'd need to leave them at that point.

And you need to read my posts properly if you think I said that about not needing vehicles on our roads.

[BrandNewGuy]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> BNG, no you are wrong (again!) that is the point

> of Quietways - they give long, safe routes through

> the city. Obviously if you then want to go

> somewhere else, yes, you'd need to leave them at

> that point.

Which is exactly my point. Again!