second pedestrian light by Sydenham station

[coll]

I was going up Sydenham Road this morning when I saw them installing, what looks like, another set of lights for a second pedestrian crossing. This set is only about 5 metres from the new set of lights just next to the DIY shop. Will this not cause a lot more traffic? It seems strange.

[Eagle]

Will it be safer for pedestrians , who after all are the life blood of the town.

[hairybuddha]

Have a look at the plans on the Council website. Should give you an idea of what the end state will be.

Frankly if it slows traffic down and discourages the volume of through traffic that we currently suffer then I'm very much in favour.

[coll]

I've had a quick look at the plans. Unless they are an older version and have since been updated, there is no second set of lights listed.
I don't argue that it is safer it simply seems they are awfully close together.

[JulietP]

Have a look at the plans on the Council website. Should give you an idea of what the end state will be.

Frankly if it slows traffic down and discourages the volume of through traffic that we currently suffer then I'm very much in favour.

What alternative routes are there? The south circular - with tailbacks from catford almost to the brockley turn off? Or would you rather see more traffic go via Laurie Park Road and Penge?

We have to face the fact that the road system in South London is badly planned and poorly maintained. The lack of places to cross the myriad train lines means that congestion is inevitable. I try to walk and use buses as much as I can, but sometimes a car is necessary!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Juliet
Most of inner South London which includes SE26 , was NOT built with cars in mind. How many car owners actually need car as we have great bus and train services.

It is a catch 22 if we somehow doubled the road space in SE26 and surrounding area this would just attract more vehicles.

Where do you think all the vehicles that use the M25 went before it was built. Answer they did not most of that traffic did not exist.

I recall in 85 seeing a client in Sunbury on Thames who lived near Maidstone. I was staggered one would do such a journey.
Now these are common place.

[mosy]

I opened a thread recently to say that Riney had confirmed that the "station crossing" would be open mid-May-ish. The man in the High Street office whom I asked didn't really understand how come it could be a hardship either to walk up or down to the other lights. Fair enough if that is his view, except that people from the station flooding out will just cross the road by dodging traffic (as I do when wanting to nip to or from the bank and shops on "the other side" and back, which a poor lady met her death from trying to do a couple of years or so ago.

Will it increase traffic [tailbacks]? Not really IMO, as it will be light-operated (as the uphill one is). It could well be an improvement as the old zebra was almost at a permanent stop when a train had come into the station with one person then another. etc all trickling onto it, i.e. an ongoing stream that held up traffic for ages. At rush hours, the traffic isn't really moving anyway and during the day, it is better surely for people to be able to cross safely and I'm sure even vehicle drivers are glad that they can (will soon) be able to see the lights so be unlikely to run pedestrians down as was the fair chance on the old zebra crossing.

I notice that the new uphill one at Kirkdale doesn't go "Beep Beep..." when the Green Man says it's OK to cross. Dunno if that's temporary?

[hairybuddha]

Have a look at the plans on the Council website. Should give you an idea of what the end state will be.

Frankly if it slows traffic down and discourages the volume of through traffic that we currently suffer then I'm very much in favour.

What alternative routes are there? The south circular - with tailbacks from catford almost to the brockley turn off? Or would you rather see more traffic go via Laurie Park Road and Penge?

We have to face the fact that the road system in South London is badly planned and poorly maintained. The lack of places to cross the myriad train lines means that congestion is inevitable. I try to walk and use buses as much as I can, but sometimes a car is necessary!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I certainly don't disagree that the road system is badly planned and poorly maintained - But I'd question whether all but a very small percentage of private motor vehicles that come down Sydenham High St are really "essential journeys". What benefit do those journeys provide to the community?

All I am saying with my post is I would like to see less traffic in general and less through traffic in particular. Surely we can all agree on that? How we get there is debatable. But all of us who live in and around Sydenham suffer the ill effects of the bad planning to which you refer on a daily basis.

[Tim Lund]

All I am saying with my post is I would like to see less traffic in general and less through traffic in particular. Surely we can all agree on that?

I doubt it, even though I'm probably with you in wanting this. I believe TfL, who are responsible for Sydenham Road, have a fairly rigid policy that capacity has to be maintained, which has been a overriding constraint on the Sydenham Road improvements. There is a fairly standard view that mobility is necessary for the economy, and given the size of cars within the overall 'modal mix', it takes a lot to convince those who believe their role will continue at current levels, that cutting road capacity can be a good idea.

I suspect that only time will win the argument, as continued high petrol prices and the sluggish economy mean that other parts of the modal mix - public transport, cycling - grow, and we eventuall realise we could have got away with less road capacity.

[hairybuddha]

So we agree then? Traffic blights the High St and we would like less of it?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Hairy B
Never have you said truer words.
How many car trips through town need to be made. Most of us have two feet , able to use buses and trains.

[Tim Lund]

So we agree then? Traffic blights the High St and we would like less of it?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think so on the main issue, although it's not one I've given too much thought to. My point of disagreement was on whether 'we all' can agree, understanding by 'we all' the general population.

[hairybuddha]

I'd be amazed if anyone, when asked if they would like less traffic on ythe High St, would say no. Then again plenty of things that I witness on the High St amaze me so...

Actually TFL are slowly coming round to the idea that less space for motor vehicles is beneficial to the local economy and community. Car use in London has been steadily declining for a few years now. It's time to start reclaiming our public spaces for people. Sadly, the refurbishment of Sydenham High St is one project that has probably come a little too early to make a proper difference (the part pedestrianisation of Venner Rd and Station Approach notwithstanding).

[stuart]

So we agree then? Traffic blights the High St and we would like less of it?

That's a question you might wish to address to the Sydenham Society ...

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Stuart - I sense that you are hinting at something that I don't know the history or background to. Could you elaborate?

[leenewham]

Traffic is actually quite healthy for high streets, especially if you can encourage people to stop and leave their cars for an hour or two.

Sounds mad doesn't it?

It's no surprise to find most high streets and clusters of shops in places where there is high traffic. It's another reason why shop presentation is so important. You are advertising to thousands of passers by in cars every day.

In areas where part of the high street has had traffic reduced, shops are struggling and this is now being changed. The only times this sort of works is where the high street backs onto a large shopping mall, as in Bromley, Hounslow etc, but then after the main shopping mall shuts, the high street dies.

You may not like this, but it is a fact. Shops needs passing traffic. Of course, making it more pedestrian friendly is a good thing too. High Street Kensington and Walworth are two examples always brought up as good examples, but they also have volumes high traffic. You need both forms of traffic: vehicle and foot. Which means you need decent parking and a decent time for free parking (not 30 minutes!!!!) and easy to use and good value parking fees.

[hairybuddha]

Lee - Yours is a fairly common misconception. It is increasingly being realised that people arriving at high streets by foot or on bicycle spend more than those arriving by motor vehicle. Just a few examples here:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commut ... vers/4066/
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/03/23/wh ... -business/
http://bikeportland.org/2012/07/06/stud ... more-74357

In addition, if we were able to reduce the traffic passing through Sydenham - or indeed remove through traffic altogether - we would have a far more pleasant environment. Which would encourage people to visit, to linger, to ultimately spend more money. Increasing house prices, improving health and well being. It's a virtuous circle.

Sadly the High St is anything but pleasant and the externalities of such high dependance on motor vehicles are felt by everyone in the vicinty. I am a perfect example. I don't want to sit with a coffee on the edge of a race track and I certainly don't wont to spend any time in the area so I take my custom further afield where the environment is nicer or stay at home in my garden. Custom denied to local shops.

[stuart]

Stuart - I sense that you are hinting at something that I don't know the history or background to. Could you elaborate?

It should really be up to SydSoc to state their position and why. My impression is it is rather more in line with Lee's view than yours. To that you can add Sydenham Traders. Which may explain why Sydenham Road has ended up as is rather than in line with the original consultation.

IMHO the problem is with the on-street parking. Its jolly handy for the cash machines but a quick hop there brings no benefit to the street. Can it be coincidence that the success of the Walworth Road and Lordship Lane is that both, less physically attractive, roads are too narrow to accommodate two lines of two metre wide metal which hide away the shops opposite to the shopper - and to the traffic - both sides!

And unlike either - Sydenham has a decent size free car park. The fact that is often half empty shows that the main problem is the street does not offer (or the offer cannot be seen) to make it a shopping destination unlike Walworth Road and Lordship Lane. TfL's objective was to maximise the flow of motorised traffic. They have succeeded with that (well nearly) but at what cost to the local environment and economy?

Stuart

[coll]

So, there IS a second set of lights - original topic - and they are not on the original plan and 25 feet from the first set. It just seems to be a bit much, regardless of walking/cycling/driving. Just seems strange to me!

[stuart]

I fear the second set is being put in to accommodate a cycle crossing for the cycle route that comes up Venner Road (hence the extra bit stuck on the side of the ped crossing light).

Another fiasco in the consultation was that one bit of TfL was planning to send cyclists down Silverdale whilst another were planning to send them left up Kirkdale (CS6). They were unaware of each other's plans. When I pointed this out they shrugged their shoulders and made the bridge area even more inconvenient and dangerous to navigate. Is it just me or is the hallf-on, half-off parking outside the The Railway Pavillion designed to screw up both road and pavement users? Do we really, really need it?

Stuart