second pedestrian light by Sydenham station

[hairybuddha]

Stuart - Really interesting couple of posts - Seems there's a lot we agree on. Is there still info floating around somewhere on the original plans for the high street and the consultation? I'd be quite interested to see what, if anything, their ideas were for accomodating cyclists and cycle parking.

[jonathan_har]

Agree with HairyB that the congestion on the High Street is a blight, I just don't get the argument which says that reducing traffic and parking means the High St suffers. Of course that might be true if the only people visiting it came by car and the shop and street environment even without traffic was so poor that nobody would want to visit on foot. But assuming that we are hoping that the High St shop and street environment will become attractive it seems crazy to say that mixing this with a traffic jam the length of the street is positive. It would be a shame if the improvment works have not addressed this, although I'm sure more crossings will help. the success of the Lordship lane, as well as it's shops, is that the 2 sides of the road are close to each other and popping from one side to the other possible through the slow moving traffic, the street works as a whole - unlike Sydenham High St currently.

[Eagle]

I agree with Jonathon

People are not going to travel from other neighbourhoods to sample the delights of our High Street.

The custom will be 99% people living or working in SE 26.

Consequently these good people will , in most cases , have no trouble walking to our beloved high street.

Parking should NOT be encouraged.

[stuart]

Is there still info floating around somewhere on the original plans for the high street and the consultation?

There is this: http://sydenham.org.uk/sydenham-road-consultation/
I don't know what happened to the report. Perhaps a councillor has access?

One thing I do remember distinctly was the preference of zebra crossings over light controlled. So what happened? The only zebra went and we get even more of the other. A more clear policy prioritisation of vehicles over people would be hard to imagine. That was common in the last millennium. One would have hoped Lewisham/TfL had moved on in this. Sadly they haven't.

What then happened HB was after the first (unsatisfactory to some?) consultation was quietly forgotten and we had a second. Arguably with a loaded agenda. Even so we may never know if it produced the results required for I could never get hold of the raw results.

Its great that we are having £2m spent on Sydenham Road. I am mightily impressed with the quality of work. But the fact that Lee's great signs and welcoming frontages remain hidden behind two walls of metal suggests we missed a 21C trick. Particularly as most non-disabled on-street parking is really unnecessary as there is sufficient off-street parking in Girton Road (less than half full this morning).

Stuart

[marymck]

Please don't forget the disabled, very many of whom cannot use the buses. They need wide parking spaces on or very near the high street. And please don't forget that slowing traffic to a start/stop crawl greatly increases air pollution.
Even if there were a sensible alternative route for through traffic, this would just decant the problem to other, more residential streets, where the air and noise pollution is more harmful. This has recently been the case with upper kirkdale, where a combination of school expansion, new build housing, extra parking by cars no longer able to park in thorpwood avenue, and so called traffic calming, has resulted in greatly increased noise and air pollution. Lessons could be learned from this.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[stuart]

Please don't forget the disabled, very many of whom cannot use the buses. They need wide parking spaces on or very near the high street.

Thanks for your support Mary.

We have allowed on-street parking for the able to block convenient access and parking for the disabled. I speak with both feeling and experience (my mum). Would campaigning for the bays to be restricted to disabled and loading/unloading be an improvement for most at little inconvenience to any?

Stuart

[Eagle]

Stuart and Mary , you are quite correct.

That is why I stated that MOST people could use buses , not 100%.

Of course all assistance should be given to these people.

[jonathan_har]

Thank you Eagle. The point I would make is that increasing parking and decreasing impediments to traffic flow will not ease congestion, London traffic will always fill a road to full regradless of capacity - witness the congestion charge, central London is no-less congested now than before the charge because the space initially freed up at the beginning has been filled by people happy to pay the charge. As long as it is a through-route there will always be a traffic jam on the High Street even if it was made 3 lanes each way, it would simply attract more traffic which would fill up the extra capacity.

The best we can hope is that with more street crossings and wider pavements the impact of the inevitable traffic jam on the High St is reduced.

[Eagle]

Jonathan I 100% agree.
I recall in the past glorious schemes to try to solve our traffic problems by urban motorways. One in 60's was for two motorway ring roads one just north and one just south of Sydenham. Would have been a complete disaster.

Also in late 80's plan to upgrade south circular including long road tunnel from The Grove Pub to just past The Railway Telegraph.

Fortunately the threat of housing subsiding and also the cost put that one to bed.

We do not want more roads , but less cars. Simples.

[stuart]

Restricting on-street parking will marginally increase Sydenham Road capacity and transit times. This by removing blockages as people reverse in/out bays, do U turns, swing doors open and suchlike.

The major beneficiary of this will be bus passengers which ticks one of TfL's biggest boxes.

Given that Sydenham Road becomes more attractive as a result than the consequent drop in through demand to Sainsbury's et al would also reduce (albeit slightly) congestion. In other words it is possible to engineer a positive feedback so that pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and the remaining drivers all benefit. Not to mention high street traders.

Its a scary thing to try but do we really want to stick with what we have?

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Mary - Traffic displacement would certainly be a problen in the short term - But if a coherent system was in place across the borough this need not put extra strain on residential streets. Hackney is a good example. They have removed through routes using filtered permeability and introduced pedestrianisation and shared use areas, taking space away from private motor vehicles in the process. There has not been an increase in congestion as you might have expected. Instead, Hackney has the highest modal share for cycling anywhere in the UK and is a far more pleasant place to visit as a result, for everyone. The above could easily be implemented around Sydenham High Street but the political will does not exist.

Thanks for the link Stuart - I agree that the standard of the work is good. But the plans clearly weren't ambitious enough. Pity, there is a lot of public money sloshing around for this stuff at the moment.

Eagle - Someone recently showed me the urban motorway plans to which you refer. The Westway is a remnant of that horrific folly!

[Eagle]

Hairy B
Yes thankfully discarded. Seem to recall the southern road would have just missed Selhurst Park.

Even recall some people in the 60's saying we ought to pave over all railway lines in London. Do not think this was seriously considered , but what a disaster it would have been.

It is meant to be expensive to own and run a car. So many people are said to be hard up. Why then so many cars.

[hairybuddha]

The car is still a status symbol in this country Eagle - Many people are prepared to spend huge proportions of their income running and maintaining one because they are unaware or unwilling to consider alternatives.

[maestro]

Hairy B

It is meant to be expensive to own and run a car. So many people are said to be hard up. Why then so many cars.

Because some of us travel vast distances around the country and may frequently visit places where there is no public transport. The only alternative for me would be a helicopter, a car is considerably cheaper to run.

[Eagle]

Maestro
People who travel vast distances by car for their job all over the country, perhaps should not be based miles from a motorway.

[maestro]

In my case it's not involving work, I live between Sydenham and Cumbria, splitting my time between the two. It's a free country and one is perfectly free to live or travel where one wants.

[Eagle]

Maestro
I accept my comment a touch extreme.

I was trying to say that the few people who need to travel the UK by car should not expect us to build over South London for their benefit.

You must us a lot of petrol. Guess you are not a member of The Green Party.

[maestro]

Diesel with my current drive. As I've only ever flown four times in my life, the last time being 1993, my conscience can remain fairly clear.

[Eagle]

I have only flown 4 times as well eight if you count the return journey ).

Amazing to drive that weekly . Think I would try and go by train and park near Cumbrian Station . But we are all different.

[maestro]

On each trip North my estate car is totally filled to maximum loading capacity at PFC and the first port of call is my cousin's hotel up in Dumfriesshire to deliver the load. I only do the North/South trip around once a month. So because of the loads I carry and the fact I get to numerous remote places to visit friends and family, plus following my passion for Salmon and Sea Trout fishing whenever I can, life without a car would be quite impossible.