|
Highway improvements to Dartmouth Road
|
| Author |
Message |
Red67
Posts: 141
Joined: Nov 2007
|
15-01-2016 03:20 PM
You're certainly right there, Michael!
I agree that parking is the main problem in terms of how traffic moves along the road at the moment, but i would still like to see some more detail and a wider traffic management plan, just to be reassured that this has at least been taken into account as a possible consequence...
|
|
| |
|
 |
Perryman
Posts: 822
Joined: Dec 2006
|
15-01-2016 04:35 PM
I think it would be tricky to fit a couple of cycle lanes along here, but the path next to the rail could be widened and would provide good connectivity between the new cycle/pedestrian friendly German bridge that they have promised for years, and the new cycle highway that will go past the station one day.
|
|
| |
|
|
P1971
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
|
15-01-2016 08:22 PM
Well put Anotherjohn/Boss  I really hope the team agree to a meeting with you because I don't know anyone else that knows D Rd more from all angles than you!
|
|
| |
|
|
davidwhiting
Posts: 80
Joined: Dec 2003
|
17-01-2016 10:04 AM
Otherjohn's arguments about loading are very powerful. In fact, unless the loading problem is solved, I am not sure these works should go ahead. A main objective of these improvements is to provide conditions in which retail business will be better able to thrive. There is not much point if many businesses are seriously damaged.
There are obviously conflicting demands on Dartmouth Road (for example, traffic flow, pedestrian flow, retail needs). These are in many cases irreconcilable.
I raised the following concerns with the transport section:
1. The road and pavements on the West (Sylvan Post) side of Dartmouth Road are at a much higher level than those on the East (Boots). In places, I estimate as much as 2 to 3 feet. The illustration on the front page of the brochure shows the road as level.
My concern is that it may be difficult to achieve the single level highway. This could mean either an unsatisfactory result, or a very long period of work. I believe that a full survey of likely difficulties, and a delay risk assessment, should be undertaken before these works are carried out. I would mention the works in Ladywell which, because matters dragged on for so long, caused serious difficulties for local enterprises.
2. I note that natural stone is proposed.
Capital investment always has a revenue consequence, and I would want an assurance that the use of natural stone would not increase maintenance costs. The council's resources for highways maintenance cannot be expected to increase over the next few years.
3. Before the position of the bus stops on Dartmouth Road is finalised, I would suggest that a trial is undertaken with temporary stops - given the narrowed carriageway, there is a risk of tail backs to the S Circular if more than one bus arrives at a time.
4. I am not clear which trees are to be felled outside Kingswear House. The evergreen oaks may have some historic significance related to the country estate on which this part of Dartmouth Road was built. I imagine that the trees along the road would have been either pleached or pollarded when funds were available for such things.
|
|
| |
|
|
P1971
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
|
|
| |
|
|
P1971
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
|
21-02-2016 12:25 PM
This was ridiculous this morning!
Ambulance & police car with flashing lights & sirens on couldn't pass each other this morning due to parked cars on D Rd.
You can't see the police car in this pic as it's coming in the opposite direction & the white car fully on the pavement only done this to try help them pass each other.
This was before the traffic build up due to the tree being moved on London Rd today, but oh my it's in full swing now!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
P1971
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
|
02-03-2016 02:00 PM
Workmen have been on D Rd today & have said preliminary improvements to D Rd will start in about a months time with major works starting in about 3 months time.
They kindly let me take a pic of the plans they had.
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
16-03-2016 02:40 PM
Apparently there was a meeting last night for local stakeholders to discuss the proposed improvements for Dartmouth Road. Given its importance to the whole of Forest Hill I find it very strange that it wasn't publicised - or at least given a brief mention on this forum. Anyway, is there anything any of those privileged people would like to share with others?
This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 02:44 PM by Anotherjohn.
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
17-03-2016 09:57 PM
Can anyone give us an update?
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
|
| |
|
|
Londondrz
Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
|
20-03-2016 06:57 PM
We cant tell you, you are not in the clique 
|
|
| |
|
|
P1971
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
|
20-03-2016 08:05 PM
I only found out about this last minute, but expect local Cllr's would have been invited.
Maybe worth sending a group email asking if we could have access to the minutes maybe?
Happy to do this tomorrow if we get no reply on here.
Londondrz don't have your email, Anotherjohn course I have yours.
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
20-03-2016 09:15 PM
You're right Londondrz - I'm not pc enough for the 'in' crowd (or any crowd for that matter!)
|
|
| |
|
|
kelly
Posts: 20
Joined: Mar 2011
|
20-03-2016 09:34 PM
Hi john,as far as I am concerned your very p c,I've spoken today to cllr Paul upexs wife and asked if he will contact me tomorrow with an update
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
20-03-2016 10:44 PM
What an insult Kelly - pc indeed! ;^)
(I expect you're as anxious to hear as I am, so thanks for that)
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
20-03-2016 10:46 PM
This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 10:49 PM by Anotherjohn.
|
|
| |
|
|
P1971
Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
|
21-03-2016 09:40 AM
I've just emailed our Cllr's to ask for an update, so hopefully we'll get one soon!
|
|
| |
|
|
Anotherjohn
Posts: 380
Joined: May 2005
|
21-03-2016 09:46 AM
Thank you.
Just out of interest though, who are the stakeholders and were they elected in some way? (Apart from councillors of course).
This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 09:48 AM by Anotherjohn.
|
|
| |
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,260
Joined: Mar 2005
|
21-03-2016 04:46 PM
I didn't make it to the meeting as I was out of the country but the minutes were distributed earlier today:
Carriageway design & alignment
- The over-arching aim is to create a street in which vehicles are prioritised less and forced to slow down, through wider footways/ narrower carriageways, informal crossings in different materials, reduced signing and lining and lower 50mm height kerbs.
- Following comments received in the consultation about the proposed road not being wide enough, the design team explained that the proposed width of 6.4m has been approved by TfL Buses as being suitable for allowing 2 buses to pass safely. If suitable for buses, it is also suitable for other large vehicles (fire appliance, artic, refuse vehicle etc).
- The width of each lane (3.2m) is at the maximum recommended by the London Cycle Design Guidance for cyclists to ride in the primary position safely without the likelihood of unsafe overtaking manoeuvres by vehicles using the same lane. Note that cyclists can be overtaken, but only when there is no opposing traffic.
- The informal crossings were discussed. It was explained that they are not to be marked with tactile pavers as they are only really to help reinforce the speed reduction along the street through variation of materials. Post mtg note: There will however be a dropped kerb – not a slight ramp up as described. Pedestrians can still cross the street wherever they want, as happens now. The design team stressed that if there were any issues raised in the Road Safety Audit about any of these crossings (eg in proximity to bus stops) then it would be addressed at the next design stage.
- Additional formal crossing. It was noted that the existing crossings outside Holy Trinity School and at the A205 were to be retained but with no intermediate crossing for people with impairments/ better accessibility. It was explained that the accident statistics do not point to a specific requirement for a designated crossing (Post-mtg note: there were 6 in 5 years from Oct 09 to Sep 14, all “slight” and none involving peds or cycles. This is low for this class of road ). Therefore the design team will not be considering any further action in the next design stage.
- Loading bays – the design team confirmed that the parking bays double up as loading bays, which is why there appears to be a lack of loading in the middle and south sections. Concerns were voiced about the bay outside #19 (Florists): can this be moved slightly so as not to impact on the shop front display because of the required 1.8m minimum footway width? It was note that primarily this loading bay was to assist the florist and there isn't enough room for displays / loading or a more suitable / convenient location for the loading bay. Therefore the florist should consider formally requesting a licence to display flowers or reduce the amount display to assist other pedestrians.
- The design team confirmed that the proposed double yellow lines have 2 “blips”, which means that there is no stopping for parking or loading allowed. Parking / loading only possible in marked bays. It was noted that there will be a strong requirement for enforcement by the Council’s contractors to avoid the existing situation of blocked lanes during off-peak times. Post meeting note:- It is usual for additional stringent enforcement to be carried out after these types of schemes have been implemented and normally soft enforcement is carried out for a period of two weeks to warn drivers of the changes before formal fixed penalty notices are issued. The Council's parking enforcement team will be notified of scheme completion.
- The width of the side entry roads (Thorpewood Ave, Clyde Terrace, Derby Hill) was queried. Could they be reduced in width? PCL to look into the possibility and satisfy the adequacy of turning movement for large vehicles, in particular refuse and fire at next design stage.
continued..
|
|
| |
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,260
Joined: Mar 2005
|
21-03-2016 04:47 PM
Part two:
Materials, street furniture & lighting
- It was noted that the Witherford slabs in Sydenham are marked with chewing gum that is difficult to remove. The design team chose this slab for Dartmouth Rd for its internal reinforcement, making it more resilient to trafficking, and its availability in small deliveries for maintenance purposes. It was explained that the natural stone materials in the scheme would be impregnated with a product that aids the removal of gum and the design team will investigate if it’s possible to use this product on the Witherford slab also .
- A requirement for electrical points (Blakeley boxes) was highlighted for the public squares (on approach to pools, Heron Hse and Sylvan Post). Design team to introduce. Note that as Heron Hse is private land it would be subject to negotiation and written agreements and out of the Council’s control. Noted that Cllr Best suggested that the Council could lease the space and take on the management subject to agreement with the landowner. Post meeting note:- Give the likely use of the space and the difficulties that may arise with obtaining the necessary agreements in conjunction with the proposed design, that the costs associated would outweigh the limited benefits.
- Decorative lighting will only be considered for Heron Hse if the Council obtains approvals for the work from the private land owners as the Council will not have control over its future maintenance.
- Request for improved lighting in the branches of the trees in Sylvan Post square. Post meeting note;- estimated cost / approval for installation and maintenance is being sought from Skanska the Council's PFI contractor before final decision.
- Cycle stands – while they are welcomed, can there be more.
- Telephone kiosks. They are not wanted, but as a fallback position if it is not possible to remove them they could go up against the flank wall next to Paddy Power. They must be moved out of the footway. PCL provide the details of contact at Arqiva (owner of 1 box) to LBL, to be passed on with BT contact to Councillor Upex.
- SKANSKA – the design team reported that Skanska have been approached about the scheme and have been issued the GA drawings to work with. It is a long drawn out process. Cllrs requested that if there is any difficulty getting Skanska to deliver that they should be advised.
- Trees – DP confirmed the proposed species type for Sylvan Post as Amelanchier, a small tree with blossom and good autumn colour. PCL to ensure that the trees that go in to the scheme are planted at a significant size, not stick-like. Request made for more native species in the scheme, for PCL to consider.
- Bins – currently proposed as being newly-supplied standard blue Lewisham bins. There was consideration of the merits of bringing in a better style of bin vs the costs of maintaining and replacing them. LS to contact LBL refuse team about what can be done and if not additional standard blue bins to be investigated at strategic locations.
continued...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
