Are you implying cyclists and walkers designed the new road layout, which is clearly untrue? I don’t think we need any false news, thanks.
Are you implying that the civil servants in the council are car users?
That seems a stretch, given the priorities evident in their design decisions.
People saying that the new road will block emergency vehicles and make traffic worse - citation needed please.
As far as I’m aware, narrow single lane traffic deters people from stopping and the traffic flows better. I think half the issue with that road is its wide enough that people park and stop everywhere, but it’s too narrow to support it and there’s always blockages.
As for people living in flats in central London and expecting to have parking spaces right outside their property - sense of entitlement much?
I’m sure bus drivers will take that onboard. And those irritating people that stop when the the car in front does.
The burden of proof lies squarely with the advocates of changing a wide road to a narrow road.
Here’s a thought: how about we wait until the work is finished and see how the new configuration works (or doesn’t)? Neither side can prove their case right now.
The design of the new layout is by Project Centre, you can tell as the planning documents are branded Project Centre. They are hard to find at the first post of this thread, I grant you. My point is that the professional traffic planners probably know what is best for road traffic management.
Would they not be working to a brief from the council though?
the Council set out objectives and I would think that is what Project Centre worked with and the completed project should be assessed on. It’s not all about cars and traffic, though some of the objectives were to do with traffic issues, such as supporting the popular 20mph speed limit. There are broader objectives to do with boosting the economy, pedestrian use etc which were also listed in the plans that were consulted on. This thread is now so long that I can’t easily find the published objectives so here we go:-
The main objectives in the consultation leaflet were:
‘Support the introduction of a borough-wide 20mph speed limit,
reducing vehicle speeds and improving safety at junctions.
Control illegal parking.
Help the local economy by improving the overall appearance and
accessibility of the street through upgraded paving and street trees.
Make the street more pedestrian friendly and encourage sustainable
they are slightly different on the Lewisham website now:-
'The key objectives for the scheme are as follows:
Reduce speed to 20mph
Manage traffic and parking
Support the local economy
Enhance the environment
Improve the sense of arrival in Forest Hill
Increase pedestrian activity ’
… and the objectives and ensuing proposals, including the width restriction to 6.2 m are very similar to Lewisham proposals for Kirkdale and Hither Green. I suppose the objectives are designed by the council to follow requirements set out in Highways Agency design principles, which I imagine traffic engineers and Lewisham are required to follow in order to get any external funding or approval for highways work.
Doesn’t really answer the question whether it is reasonable for stopped buses to hold up all traffic going their way though- I can only assume that this is considered reasonable by the Highways Agency and DfT , taking into account the needs of the community including non-motorised road users.
Just to note that at 8pm yesterday evening there were THREE cars all parked on the new pavement area between Forest Hill Pools and Derby Hill - in each case they were parked entirely on the pavement (ie all four wheels) and effectively blocking the pavement for pedestrians (it certainly wouldn’t have been able to get a wheelchair / pushchair through the small space between the car and the wall in front of Dartmouth Estate).
As others have pointed out the success of this project seems to me to be almost entirely dependent on parking enforcement. Without it either cars will park on the pavements (defeating the pedestrian purpose of the pavement widening and probably causing sufficient damage to the pavements that they will soon have to be repaired at further expense), or they will park on the road, which is now narrower, blocking one lane and causing congestion, or a combination of the two.
Do the counsel understand that the enormous sums of public money they’ve ploughed into this will be wasted unless they commit to parking enforcement?
Currently sitting in a bus on Dartmouth Road. Traffic backed up to Sydenham School. This is a ridiculous situation. I need to know that I can get to work in an hour without having to spend 25 minutes on Dartmouth Road.
London Bridge platforms to Charing Cross were closed for 18 month which was a real pain and we all had to find alternatives to make it into work so I have high hopes that a bottleneck on Dartmouth Road until march won’t bring London to a standstill
London Bridge closed for eighteen months you say? When was that?
I edited my post so it doesn’t confuse anyone
I have seen it twice already. Two buses were unable to pass each other outside the hill, when it had been narrowed by barriers. An ambulance was stuck for 2-3 minutes behind the buses, sirens blaring. going towards Sydenham . Saw it the other way too, outside the takeaway that replaced Bamboo House. 2-3 can be the difference between life and death.
Real shame that some car drivers are so irresponsible
I saw that parking on the new pavement a while back - quite stunned to see it - and see that traffic cones are now on that stretch to prevent it.
My latest concern is the design of the new parking bays that are now complete in some places. It seems there is a mild kerb to get onto them from the road itself (not sure if this will change after resurfacing), but they are then at the same level as the pavement, the only visual separation being the change in paving style. It’s almost encouraging pavement parking.
On top of that these ‘pavement bays’ are so narrow that anything other than a normal car (a van, for example) will not fit inside, meaning that either the vehicle wheels will overhang into the road or the vehicle will need to be driven onto the pavement. As the road is going to be quite narrow, it would be risky to leave a van encroaching into it, so I assume the pavement option will be taken.
I wonder what it was in the design process that led to this arrangement…?
I agree with your concerns about parking on the pavement. I think we can see the heights and general layout in Sydenham for comparison (the parking seems to work quite well there).
Hmm, there’s not much in it, but there is definitely a teeny-weeny height difference between the parking bay and pavement in Sydenham vs the contiguously common height between the same (albeit with different paviors) in Dartmouth Road. It still seems like an invitation to encroach onto the pavement - one that would be easily taken advantage of based on past experience of pavement parking particularly at the London road end of Dartmouth Road.
If there is going to be any real parking enforcement after the works (which has been sadly absent prior) how easy will it be to ticket a vehicle which is is in a parking bay but has encroached onto the pavement part of said ‘bay’. Seems to me like a recipe / excuse for more of what we have now…