Sydenham Road Improvements

[AndIHerebyDeclare]

- was in 'The Conservative Case'

Chazza wrote:

Ross Archer wrote:

We oppose the speed tables as we believe they are not very good for emergency vehicles, and a lot of emergency vehicles will use Sydenham Road as it’s quite a main road. And also we do not feel they are really needed on Sydenham Road.

Belief and feelings are very nice, but it would be nice to see some evidence. The professionals who designed the scheme took this into consideration and didn't identify speed tables as being problematic for emergency vehicles; why do you believe they are a problem?

Ross Archer wrote:

We opposing the narrowing as we feel it will mean fewer cars will be able to park, and that will have a knock on effect on the businesses in the road. This is as many people using Sydenham High Street will be using cars.

Firstly, the plans specifically state that the number of parking spaces will remain the same. Secondly, discouraging the use of cars to travel short distances (the majority of shoppers in Sydenham are from the local area) is one way of reducing congestion and improving the local environment.

Speed tables, road narrowing and car parking are fairly dull policy issues, but your position on them demonstrates to me a certain reluctance to fully embrace more progressive transport policies, which is a shame, because we're going to need them.

[leenewham]

Agree, I found those answers to be disappointing as I don't believe they got the facts and was surprised that they had even been to the exhibition. So I definitely WON'T be voting Conservative on the basis of that. It seemed almost as if 'this is something a Labour Council didm lets not back it 100%, we have to find something to disagree with.

But I'm willing to eat my hat* if the Conservative candidates can prove the above wrong.

*If I had one.

[Ross Archer]

Hi

I did not mean to say we opposed them, but in fact we question the need for them. I apologise if I wrote that.

However the point still remains we still question the need for these speed tables, and road narrowing. When we went along the high street and spoke to local businesses these were the areas of the plan they were most concerned about. Also we feel the money in the plan being proposed could be spent instead of road narrowing, and speed tables, on actually improving the high street in a different way. Such as making the local environment around more inviting.

Also want to see more free parking in the area, or at least an hour of free parking. That will help local businesses. And also must not forget the other high street of Kirkdale.

As well we are very please the Mayor Boris Johnson has given the £3 million pounds to improve the high street. And we do generally agree with the plan. But we question the need of speed tables, and road narrowing. This is not because we want to be awkward and disagree. We are being open and honest with you over our thoughts, and I hope you can see that we are not trying to be awkward.

More needs to be done to ease congestion, but we question the current plans capability of doing that If you narrow the road it will mean more congestion, just an example when busses stop more cars will wait behind it creating more congestion if the road is narrowed. At the moment cars can go freely past. Also want to see more done to attract new businesses and different businesses to the local area.

[Tim Lund]

Ross:

Do you have any idea what the percentage of Sydenham Road spend is from pedestrian, and how much from motorists? I asked the manager of Somerfields / the Co-op this once, and he did not know, so don't be embarrassed if you do not know either. However, I am fairly sure that pedestrian spend is rather more important, which is why it makes sense for this investment to be focused on making Sydenham Road a more attractive environment for pedestrians, especially since their importance will continue to increase with improvements to public transport, e.g. the East London line.

The fact that is being paid for by TfL is very important - because their requirement to keep buses getting through means that there is no way they are going to accept a scheme which reduced road capacity - whatever the changes to road width might be at one or two points. This sort of thing will have been very carefully worked out, and there is little reason to think the modellers will have got it wrong.

You think that motorists should be able to park for a full hour - but why not longer? At what point does extending the amount of time people can park for free in a High Street mean the net effect is that they occupy space which could otherwise be used by other short term car users - or even deliveries? I've asked other people this question, and I've never had a clear answer, so in all fairness, I don't expect you to have much idea here either. On the other hand, do you think the owners of a big shopping centre with malls would ever contemplate letting cars come inside the malls to park - for up to an hour? - rather than have them park in a big car park just outside? It's roughly the same decision as whether to allow people to park on a High Street. A short period is reasonable, because it's a pain for people to have to park in Girton Road, say, to trek all the way up to a shop near the station; but at some point allowing longer free parking must reduce High Street vitality.

We have a scheme here which has been painstakingly, professionally, planned. Of course professionals can be subject to silly fads, and come up with idiocies, but your repeating the mantras 'road narrowing' and 'speed tables' does not do anything to make me think this is one of those times when the professionals have got it wrong.

[Chazza]

When we went along the high street and spoke to local businesses these were the areas of the plan they were most concerned about.

Which local businesses are seriously concerned that their takings will be affected by the installation of speed tables? What evidence is there that speed tables affect how customers spend their money? To my mind, speed tables are there to elevate the priority of pedestrian street users.

Also we feel the money in the plan being proposed could be spent instead of road narrowing, and speed tables, on actually improving the high street in a different way. Such as making the local environment around more inviting.

Making the environment more inviting is a noble cause, but you need to explain how you will make this happen.

But we question the need of speed tables, and road narrowing. This is not because we want to be awkward and disagree. We are being open and honest with you over our thoughts, and I hope you can see that we are not trying to be awkward.

If you could point out on the plans the places where the narrowing of the current carriageway concerns you, I would be more inclined to listen to your arguments. As it is, you are just shouting "road narrowing!" which smacks of scare-mongering.

At the moment cars can go freely past.

Firstly, that's not quite the case. Secondly, if you look at the plans, you'll see that there are designated bus lay-bys, staggered so that other traffic can overtake.

Also want to see more done to attract new businesses and different businesses to the local area.

Now that's more like it. I'd be very interested to hear your ideas about how to do that. I have some of my own

[Ross Archer]

Hi

The main issue we have with road narrowing is we question the need of it? And we are not scare mongering but many local business are not in favour of road narrowing, or have the perceived fear of road narrowing and much needs to be done to address this.

Also to Tim's point about usage of the high street, I imagine do not know the exact figure but it is likely to be used a fair bit more by pedestrians than car uses. However that does not mean that we should not address the needs of car users. As they are still a very significant part of the local economy, and local community.

Improving the local environment is not just about green issues but also about everything generally. De cluttering the streets, making it looks more inviting. Also on Sydenham high street controlling the problem with drunks, by maybe introducing a Drinking Control Zone.

The point with the motorists is because, I know on Kirkdale when the Tesco has a delivery they have a max of 30 minutes to unload and can never manage it, and the traffic warden waits to give a ticket. But am interested in hearing more on your views on this Tim.

And on getting more businesses, and different businesses to the local community. One way we believe is streamlining planning applications. Also better promotion of the area. And if a shop or business wants to expand or develop, such as a shop in Kirkdale that wanted to put a table and chair outside which would have no impact on the space on the pavement. But they would have to pay something like £50 a day for it. That should not happen if a cafe or restraint want one outside for smokers, why not if it does not impact on the space available for pedestrians walking than they should not be charged.

But we do want to listen and involve local people, and businesses in decisions so if you have any thoughts or ideas please let us know. And if everybody is really happy with the plan for the high street we will accept it, but we still think we need to look at the detail of it a lot more.

[Chazza]

One way we believe is streamlining planning applications.

And if everybody is really happy with the plan for the high street we will accept it, but we still think we need to look at the detail of it a lot more.

- Those two statements don't exactly go hand in hand.
- The consultation period was lengthy and sought to involve as many stakeholders as possible.
- If you adjust little details until absolutely everyone is happy with everything, the scheme would never be implemented, because you can't please everyone all the time.

Cameron really has me convinced that he's a liberal conservative, which fits in quite well with my politics - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But I remain to be convinced that this attitude has trickled down to the lower ranks of the party, which is why it's so disappointing to hear you pandering to the motoring lobby. By the way, I have a car, but I don't use it to go to shops which are just around the corner.

[Ross Archer]

First I would like to point out the two statements to go hand in hand, as we are talking about streamling planning applications for businesses and shops, and not for the re-design of a road.

And I am to a social conservative, and I assure you I am not pandering to the motorist. However thier views have to be taken on board too. At the momment I do not drive I am a 19 year old student, 20 in May. So I do not drive, and I am definetly not pandering to the motorist lobby.

But the point still remains I have not yet heard a convincing argument in favour of the road narrowing.

I think we are going to have too agree to disagree on this point, but I and the local Conservative party are in favour of the plans. We just question the need for road narrowing, and speed tables. I would like to point out in contary of what I said before that we opposed them, we do not (sorry for any confusion), but we in fact just question them.

Cheers Ross

[leenewham]

The main issue we have with road narrowing is we question the need of it? And we are not scare mongering but many local business are not in favour of road narrowing.

Also to Tim's point about usage of the high street, I imagine do not know the exact figure but it is likely to be used a fair bit more by pedestrians than car uses.

Improving the local environment is not just about green issues but also about everything generally. De cluttering the streets, making it looks more inviting. Also on Sydenham high street controlling the problem with drunks, by maybe introducing a Drinking Control Zone.

A shop in Kirkdale that wanted to put a table and chair outside which would have no impact on the space on the pavement. But they would have to pay something like £50 a day for it. That should not happen if a cafe or restraint want one outside for smokers.

Hi Ross,

Ok, good responses.

Regarding the road narrowing, as I understand it it's being narrowed for the road crossings so people take less time to cross. This will lead to less time spent at the traffic lights which means less hold ups for traffic. Local businesses were against it because of the campaign by some against the road narrowing. I went to a number of shops in the high street and they said it was going to be narrowed from two lanes to one. It is one lane at the moment! I guess the feedback you got from business owners was a carry over form this miss-informed campaign to stop the road improvements.

Regarding useage of the high street, I think some research is needed. Would you consider having a survey to find out what people think to the high street, if they use it, why they use it, where they go if they don't use it, where they eat out etc. I think this is essential to come up with any plan for Sydenham Town centre and I find it baffling that it hasn't happened yet!

I think increasing the time you can park in Sydenham road is good, especially as 30 minutes is not enough time to go and have a quick coffee or visit more than one or two shops. But again this would be best informed by a good survey.

I totally agree about improving the look of the town centre, but I thought the road improvements were decluttering it. If you are talking about promoting better design of shops and enforcing the excellent guidelines for shops that Lewisham already has but doesn't enforce then actually you may still win my vote.

I totally agree with the comment about the table on the pavement and that rather than saying something is 'a rule' it should really be 'a guideline' and as such should be interpreted with a degree of common sense.

[Chazza]

I think we are going to have too agree to disagree on this point, but I and the local Conservative party are in favour of the plans.

I guess we will have to disagree on that one. I would also disagree that my liberal conservatism is the same as your social conservatism; it is my understanding that liberal conservatism is a moderate form of libertarianism, while social conservatism is steeped in Christianity, but that's a discussion for another thread

[Ross Archer]

Hi yes I would like to conduct a survey in Sydenham along the lines you just described, and yes you could well be right about local businesses not supporting the plan, because of what you said about the petion.

And yes we are talking about better design of shops and enforcing the excellent guidelines for shops that Lewisham already has but doesn't enforce them.

But we do need a local survey about sydenham high street, and the local area, to see what is needed, what can be done, what should be done, and about who uses the high street, when, and where.

[Tadpole]

Also we feel the money in the plan being proposed could be spent instead of road narrowing, and speed tables, on actually improving the high street in a different way. Such as making the local environment around more inviting.

Also want to see more free parking in the area, or at least an hour of free parking.

I agree 100%
Use the money to plant trees, planting boxes, hanging baskets etc.

I am one of a few people that don't like the plans for the high street.
I think closing off queensthorpe is daft and will push traffic into silverdale which is already congested in the mornings as people avoid mayow road as they have to sit at traffic lights where either nothing, as it was before, or a mini roundabout would do, then sit on sydenham road due to the totally unnecessary traffic lights at newlands park, again a mini roundable would do.
but I digress.....
Longer parking is essential if one is visiting the post office in addition to other shops and as for buses pulling into bus areas, they don't.
Look at the one outside the old fire station in forest hill, busses dont pull in, cars either go around at odd angles due to the roundabout just in front of the bus stop or sit behind it, which defies the point of the bus lay by and then you have cars churning out carp from the exhausts for no reason as they are not going anywhere which is not nice as a pedestrian.

And no, I'm not just pro cars, I also take trains, buses, and walk too

[leenewham]

I think closing off queensthorpe is daft

I believe this is not happening.

[Ross Archer]

Hi Lee I never wrote the post about closing of queensthorpe, or does my name automatically come up above the quote?

[leenewham]

Hi Ross,

I'm not sure why that happened! I just took the quote from another post.

-------
Lee - you left a bit of spurious code which caused the misquote. I've tidied it for you - Admin

[LaHibernis]

But we do need a local survey about sydenham high street, and the local area, to see what is needed, what can be done, what should be done, and about who uses the high street, when, and where.

There were a couple of surveys that were carried out in 2006/2007 as part of the research for putting together the plans to change Sydenham Road.

The first was a paper questionnaire that was sent to 5000 properties around Sydenham Road and achieved a response rate of 7.5%. Of those who responded (and judging by the response rate there is no knowing how representative this is!), 88.9% travelled to Sydenham Road on foot and 17.5% travelled by car - it adds up to more than 100% because people sometimes travel by car and sometimes on foot. It's perhaps an obvious result because the questionnaire was only sent to those who lived in the direct vicinity of Sydenham Road, not those who lived slightly further afield who would have had to have used some other form of transport. It also covered the reasons why people used Sydenham Road. This was followed by an on-street survey of 200 people. Full results can be found on the Lewisham website.

However, I am fairly sure that pedestrian spend is rather more important, which is why it makes sense for this investment to be focused on making Sydenham Road a more attractive environment for pedestrians, especially since their importance will continue to increase with improvements to public transport, e.g. the East London line.

I'm sure that you're right, but personally, I have young children and if I need to buy one or two items and I'm already in the car, I sometimes drive along Sydenham Road to see whether I can get a parking space. Even though I don't live far away, frankly it takes too long to drive home, get pushchairs and everyone ready to go on foot when you have pre-school and school timetables to work to. If there is not a space available, then I drive to a local Tesco's where they have a small car park and I can be in and out (with children in tow) in about 5 minutes. I know that it's not environmentally friendly, but lack of on-street parking does sometimes determine whether I choose to shop on Sydenham Road or not.

[JeeBee]

(first post, moved to the area in February)

As a pedestrian I've found the pedestrian crossing on top of the railway bridge to be ignored quite frequently by drivers, even when people are in the process of crossing the bridge.

I think it would be more sensible to remove this crossing, and create one closer to the Greyhound Pub (is this being refurbished?, knocked down?, turned into soulless flats?), and maybe create a new crossing on the other side (although hard for motorists with the existing yellow boxes on the road).

It's a shame that Sydenham Rail Station platform can't be extended under the road bridge and an entrance/exit built there.

As a driver I think it would be simpler to have Sydenham Road clearly be a single lane of traffic, if only to avoid other drivers being erratic because it sometimes appears to be two lanes.

As for the elections, my head is spinning! I live in Bromley by twenty metres (Border Crescent), have an SE26 postcode, vote in Lewisham West and Penge constituency for government, but Crystal Palace for local, I can't join a doctor in Sydenham because it's in Lewisham, so have to have a doctor in Anerley (Bromley) ... argh! Also I can't find the entrance to the polling station at the Tennis Club on Lawrie Park Road on Google Maps!

[leenewham]

I had a tweet about this this morning:

Funding has now been received from TfL for the detailed design and tender phase of the project. Detailed design work is now underway, and will be completed by October 2010 when the construction works will go out to tender. Once a contractor has been appointed, an intended start date and programme for the construction will be announced.

The Council also intends to use its own funds of £300,000 to upgrade Station Approach, and is currently in discussion with Transport for London, Network Rail and London Overground about the proposals.

It's confirmation of what was said at the Assembly last weekend. Unfortunately it seems as if work wont start until next year at the very earliest. But at least the money is safe for the project.

I am a little concerned that there is no word about the work that was to be done from Mayow Road to Kent House road though. Hopefully this is still going ahead.

I've made jpgs of the proposals and included them here so people can see them more clearly.






Link to the original lewisham page:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Environment/ ... ighStreet/

[Chazza]

Hmm, good and bad news; good that funding hasn't been withdrawn, bad that the project seems have slipped by several months already. I'm sure I saw a proposed timetable a few months ago that said work would be starting this summer.

[poppy]

Thanks for this Lee.

It does make it easier.

Just depressing that there are only 18 trees planned along the high street to Mayow Road (excluding the squares at Queensthorpe and Venner).

I had a quick count of the number of trees along Lordship Lane the other day, and on just one side, from the police station to the roundabout (which is really nicely planted by the way, with a large palm tree and grass) at Goose Green there are about 25 (please someone correct me if I am wrong, I was also trying to keep my eye on the road) !!!! So about 50 along that part of the high street alone.