|Posted on Sunday, 04 September, 2005 - 01:16 pm: |
I have just received a leaflet outlining proposed traffic calming measures in the area between Stanstead Road, Woolstone Road, Catford Hill and Perry Vale.
What do people think of the proposals?
|Posted on Sunday, 04 September, 2005 - 04:35 pm: |
I have not recd this . Maybe because I live in
Please give rough details
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 September, 2005 - 04:14 pm: |
I don't know that much about the proposals. I know that a few months ago everyone wwho lives in the Perry Vale area was sent a survey on traffic in the area. A few weeks ago the council counted cars driving up Perry Vale outside the Platform 2 entrance to the station.
What type of proposals are there? I haven't seen these.
Cars do tend to cut through from Perry Vale to Standsted Rd rather fast. I don't know whether things like speed bumps would work. People seam to just speed over the ones outside the Perrymont school.
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 September, 2005 - 11:30 pm: |
Every road in the traffic scheme area will have speed bumps or cushions.
Vancouver Road will be one way from Kilmorie to Hurstbourne Road.
A speed table will be placed at the junction of Colfe and Loxton Road.
Perry Vale, Perry Rise and Woolstone Road will have speed tables.
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 September, 2005 - 07:55 am: |
Thanks for your explanation
Excuse my ignorance but what is a
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 September, 2005 - 01:35 pm: |
Traffic Calming Measures - Speed Table
long raised speed humps with a flat section in the middle and ramps on the ends; sometimes constructed with brick or other textured materials on the flat section
sometimes called flat top speed humps, trapezoidal humps, speed platforms, raised crosswalks, or raised crossings
Speed tables would probably be better than speed bumps, especially on Colfe Rd. Boy Racers tend to use that street as clear run to drive as fast as possible.
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 September, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
As said above a speed table is a raised platform that extends across the whole of the centre of a road junction.
If you want to see one, you could visit the junction of Woolstone and Cranston Roads.
|Posted on Thursday, 08 September, 2005 - 09:13 am: |
sorry to do this again- I don't begrudge you the scheme, but maybe the Councillors could explain why this is happening, and we cannot get any action at all in Ewelme/Benson/Woodcombe as they say they can't afford it. What makes this area different from ours. More Labour voters perhaps. I lived in that area until recently and I can honestly say that the problems where I am now are much worse that previously.
|Posted on Thursday, 08 September, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
I think it is a terrible idea. It appears that as well as humping all the roads between Perry Vale and Stansted road, they are also planning to hump Perry Vale which is a main road.
Overall this will not reduce traffic and will mean that cars constantly have to slow down and speed up, creating more pollution and more noise.
I do not think we currently have a problem with rat-running, but once the council have their way life will be harder for residents, with less parking, and more annoying speed bumps. We will end up all having to pave over our front gardens if we want to park.
I would like to see the results of the previous survey that lead Lewisham to make such a stupid and costly proposal.
|Posted on Thursday, 08 September, 2005 - 03:17 pm: |
I am afraid a complete waste of money. They will just finish the expensive work then the whole road will be dug up for gas or water repairs
Main problem is there are to many people pretending they have passed the test. The driving standards in SE London are terrible.
|Posted on Thursday, 08 September, 2005 - 09:15 pm: |
The problem with road humps now is that they have to be so much lower by statute to accommodate emergency vehicles. We had these in Ewelme after the resurfacing works, and they are not effective as a result. Its a lazy solution, really.There is simply no point in having ineffective humps when there are other practical measures that have a better effect. LB Barnet are taking theirs out as they do not do what they say on the tin. Here we have a situation where residents of one area are getting what they don't want from the Council whilst others are being blanked.
|Posted on Friday, 09 September, 2005 - 12:02 am: |
Excuse me. How many people on this thread actually LIVE in Perry Vale North? Or is this a discussion on speed bumps by people who live on the other side of Forest Hill station?
How many people who live in the area between Stansted rd and Perry Vale would like to comment on traffic calming?
I know almost everyone on Forest Hill lives off the South Circuler (sp?? I know). However, the specific Perry Vale North neighborhood is used as a cut through from Perry Vale to Stansted rd. This is the main concern of the traffic calming proposals.
Please let's have people comment who live in these areas, and not just people who want to winge about speed bumps.
|Posted on Friday, 09 September, 2005 - 09:49 am: |
I live in The Perry Vale area and I think it is in general a good idea. I haven't actually seen the proposals but I did fill out the questionnaire some months ago.
I'm not entirely sure that speed bumbs on Perry Vale are completely necessary - it's a fairly windy road that doesn't lend itself particularly well to speeding, especially with the roundabout now at the bottom of Mayow Road.
My real gripe is the boy racers on Westbourne Drive and Church Rise - something to slow traffic down on those roads, particularly Westbourne Drive, is deeperately needed.
|Posted on Friday, 09 September, 2005 - 01:18 pm: |
I live in one of the many roads affected and you can see my opinions above.
I can understand the need to do something on Church Rise, but not on the residential streets that are too narrow and with too many corners for speeding to be a problem. And I would prefer cars to use wide roads like Church Rise rather than the narrow roads to the east of Sunderland Road.
If the real problem is rat running then they should block some of the streets as they have done around Honor Oak. Adding zebra crossings would also help slow down traffic and aid pedestrians. Lewisham council has only proposed one method to solve the problem - humps, which as Roz points out, more enlighted boroughs are abandoning. It shows how little thought and imagination Lewisham have put into solving the traffic problems around Forest Hill.
|Posted on Friday, 09 September, 2005 - 04:20 pm: |
I live in one of the roads which will be affected by the proposals.
When I received the original survey in April, I felt it wasn’t really seeking the opinions of residents, rather it was soliciting a very narrow range of responses in answer to questions, very specific to the proposed scheme.
I wrote separately to the council (the questionnaire allocated a miniscule amount of space for ‘any other ideas’), suggesting that the scheme was largely (although not wholly) irrelevant to most of the roads in the area.
I suggested that the resources could be better utilised by putting more effort into keeping traffic flowing on the main routes, rather than imposing more and more controls (more on this later) every few yards, causing drivers to take to the side roads as detours to the gridlock.
Certain roads within this area (Colfe, Kemble, Vestris, Farren and Siddons amongst others) could certainly benefit from some abatement of speeding traffic, but I am not sure that installation of bumps throughout most of the proposed area is the solution.
I suggested that the installation of a traffic island at the junction where Siddons meets Shipman would go some way to deterring drivers from cutting across this corner at speed. In addition to which it would afford pedestrians some refuge when trying to cross this very broad junction.
I also suggested some form of pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of the shops near the Old Fire Station on Perry Vale – has anyone tried to cross between the shops here during peak hours? It’s a nightmare – not so much due to the speed as to the sheer volume of traffic.
Additionally, I suggested that the installation of improved (and more energy efficient) street lighting would make the streets safer in many respects.
I noted with interest that one third of the space allocated to the questionnaire, was focussed on monitoring the questionnaire itself.
The reply I received was one expressing sorrow that I was dissatisfied with the survey, and frankly little more other than inviting me to await the result.
When I received news of the chosen proposals, it came as little surprise to find that there was little to distinguish the April survey proposals from the agreed ‘blanket coverage’ of most of the area with speed bumps, cushions and raised tables, the popularity of which (by the Council’s own admission) is questionable.
My feeling is that the decision to implement this scheme had already been taken a long time ago, and the survey is little more than a statisticians exercise. (Remember all those questions monitoring the survey?)
The resources for this scheme come, incidentally, from Transport for London and not Lewisham itself.
While I think the Mayor has done some good for public transport (more bus lanes, more buses – bendy buses aside– they’re too big for London’s roads and actually contribute to congestion), he is by his own admission, an avid car hater, and is on record as saying that if he had it his own way he would ban all cars from London. On the basis of which, it doesn’t surprise me that such an unimaginative scheme is about to be foisted upon us, despite our ‘opinions’ having been sought and apparently ‘agreed on’.
I’m of the view that traffic management in London, in general, shows a shocking lack of joined up thinking. For instance, can anyone explain to me the benefit to traffic flow , from the following phenomenon?
Traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) is held stationery at a red traffic light, waiting for ten or maybe fifteen seconds for traffic in the opposite direction to get a green light. When traffic from the second direction is again held by the red light, another ten or fifteen seconds pass, with nobody proceeding while we wait for the pedestrian phase to turn to green, following which – guess what? Another wait, during which nobody makes any progress.
30 to 40 seconds spent at each set of traffic control lights, where no traffic moves in any direction, nobody goes anywhere, multiply that by the number of traffic light controls you’re likely to encounter in the course of your journey – is it any wonder that driving round London is more a process of queuing rather than making progress? Or have I got this terribly wrong?
|Posted on Friday, 09 September, 2005 - 05:20 pm: |
I live on CHurch Rise and I filled in the questionnaire (as far as I could given that it was chokka full of unexplained jargon such as speed tables, etc.) saying I generally supported the proposals. We do have a problem with people driving too fast up this road and I worry about my cat! If I had kids I'd probably be even more concerned.
I think speed tables are a bit dangerous in themselves because they raise the road to the level of the pavement - i.e. no kerb to protect pedestrians from cars swerving onto the pavement. But that's probably not a huge risk except maybe in icy conditions.
One thing I would like to know is why are they resurfacing Stanstead Road? It looked fine as it was before if you ask me. No potholes, no problems. What a massive inconvenience and waste of money for no benefit??!!
|Posted on Saturday, 10 September, 2005 - 05:12 pm: |
Abi's ideas are great! A traffic island on Siddons would be a Godsend, I cross (cautiously) there everyday. In addition to a cross walk on Perry Vale by the old Fire station, one by the tunnel entrance by the station would be helpful as well.
Oh well, if we all ran the world...
|Posted on Saturday, 10 September, 2005 - 07:48 pm: |
I beg to suugest the most dangerous crossin
place is Perry Vale just past Junction of Dacres Road.
It is unsighted for pedestrians die to the sharp corner and even I have to dart across. An elderly person would have NO chance.
Perhaps a width restriction is the only thing that would slow the vehicles down.
|Posted on Saturday, 10 September, 2005 - 07:49 pm: |
I agree with Elizabeth.
A pedestrian crossing at the north end of Perry Vale, in the vicinity of the tunnel to the station would reduce the ‘life-in-your-hands’ experience to which …. How many commuters?…. are subjected to every day.
Given that at peak times, road traffic at this location is queuing rather than flowing, I cannot imagine such a crossing would impinge on the smooth and harmonious traffic conditions (sic) to which we are all accustomed and entitled.
As for ‘running the world’…
One thing at a time – let’s deal with SE23 first.
|Posted on Saturday, 10 September, 2005 - 08:27 pm: |
Brian, while this isn’t a concourse for ‘dodgiest road crossing in SE London’ I agree with your point.
A crossing could be installed here without compromising traffic flow, for the same reasons I have outlined in my earlier posting in response to Elizabeth’s.
Needless to say, it remains for us to convince LBL that their ‘soldiers-on-the-ground’ can provide them with more relevant information than any slickly produced survey ever can.
It remains to be seen whether or not, they listen and act,
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 September, 2005 - 04:11 pm: |
There will be an exhibition of these proposed traffic calming measures in St George's Church Hall, Vancouver Road on Friday 23 September in the afternoon and Saturday 24 September in the morning.