Extension of ULEZ to South Circular in Oct 2021

sadiq

#63

To reduce pollution near WHS, the simplest way would be to improve traffic flow through the Forest Hill junction; specifically, the A205 clockwise flow, i.e. in the direction from Catford to Dulwich.

The constant hill starts by traffic, including a large proportion of goods vehicles will be contributing a vast amount to local pollution. At peak traffic, vehicles may have four or more hill starts until they pass through the traffic lights.

I believe the current junction layout is a hangover from when trams ran though it as they required a large turning radius. The junction itself is too big, which greatly reduces the efficiency of each phase. The clockwise flow has two available lanes, but generally uses only one due to a lack of lane markings around the corner. The bus stops immediately before and after the junction also reduce traffic flow through the junction. The keep clear section at the exit of the station car park reduces the density of queueing vehicles near the entry to the junction and reduces the rate at which vehicles enter the junction.

It’s simply a bad junction that stalls traffic through Forest Hill, increases local pollution, and makes it more difficult for pedestrians to navigate around Forest Hill centre.

Here is an aerial show of the junction showing its excessive area:


#64

yes that’s a great improvement. I’d been thinking on similar lines, but to make the boundary coincident with Borough boundaries. ie for us. move the boundary at least as far as the Bromley/Lewisham border. This would have the benefit of cleaning up all of Lewisham and not just the bits within the South Circular .


#65

The boundary does need to be main roads so that additional traffic is not pushed onto narrow residential streets and avoid people finding they have no choice but to enter the ULEZ (other than a U-turn in the middle of the road).


#66

yes fair point- guess I see no reason why the main road should be the South Circular, which already cuts Forest Hill in two and this would tend to reinforce that if even some more traffic was forced out toward the perimeter of the zone.


#67

Maybe they should also send the aircraft and their pollution away as well, a win win on the pollution and sound.


#68

I’ve often wondered about this - how the south circular isn’t given priority at this junction. especially going eastbound - it’s a left filter, to stay on the south circular, and the main lights are for turning right only. surely it should be a right filter for turning onto Dartmouth Road, and the main lights should be for traffic staying on the A205 - as most of the traffic will be staying on the south circular, and only some of it turning off.

and yes the bus stop is in the way meaning that there’s little space for traffic to change lanes into the left hand, carrying on the A205.


#69

This has been an interesting and informative thread. As part of our response to the Mayor’s consultation Lewisham Liberal Democrats have a petition on their website. Libdem petition fightng for clean air


#70

I greatly sympathise with and support the argument. My worry is that such initiative may be misused by the camp who are fighting the ULEZ altogether by labelling it as opposition to the proposal, although the consultation was well structures to allow to distinguish between the two types of responses by those who a smaller and those who want a bigger area.

There is clear momentum now to act and if this next phase goes ahead it is not unlikely that another extension may follow soon after. However, if the next phase doesn’t go ahead, then I would expect a quick death for the whole initiative. It’s a tricky one.


#71

Another interesting BBC piece.

This time under their “Reality Check” feature.

Seems to argue all sides of the coin ( - it is possible there is more than two sides).

And none.

Some interesting hard facts - but a meaningful set of conclusions is absent.


#72

It’s even in your username! :smiley:


#74

So it’s gonna cost money to cross the South Circ and get to the hospital now. Great!


#75

I think the ULEZ extension is an expensive high profile political posture - to be seen to be doing something. It will be bad for Forest Hill - heavier traffic next to the station will undermine efforts to revitalize the town centre, and the surveillance infrastructure will add to the impression that Forest Hill is a place to drive through, rather than a place to arrive.


#76

The Forest Hill Society executive committee met a couple of weeks ago to discuss the appropriate response to this consultation, taking account of what is in the best interest of the health of local residents, impact on traffic, and economic impact for business and residents in the area.

The response from the society can be read on the website. But the summary is:

The Forest Hill Society would like to see a larger ULEZ, with strong penalties for non-compliance, and as soon as possible. Additionally, we have concerns about impacts on Forest Hill residents from potentially greater numbers of polluting vehicles using the South Circular as a result of your current proposal to exclude this road from the ULEZ.

We hope that this response represents what we have heard in the local community, including on this forum. Although we cannot possibly represent everybody’s views, we hope to have captured some of the key concerns. We would also recommend completing the survey yourself to share your views/concerns with TfL (as well as on this forum).


#77

If you could give me some time to save up for a new car first - that would be grand :wink:


#78

Thank Micheal, completed. The more who complete the survey the better. I fully agree with FHS and that the zone should be larger. I think it should be the M25 if they are going to do this they might as well encompass all of Greater London.


#79

Maybe, but for a very good reason. As long as we’re governed by EU law, it is actually a legal requirement to be doing something. Not staying within legal pollution limits risks being taken to court, and Europe is actively exploring possible sanctions for offenders across the continent as we speak, as they’ve started to lose their patience with members not playing by the rules they’ve set for themselves. Elsewhere, the car industry is already getting very anxious about possible driving bans looming.
After 2021, I believe we’re free to keep polluting the air to our liking, should we decide to change what will by then be national law. I think being cognisant of the number of deaths caused by air pollution that we shouldn’t.


'Red alert' issued and millions warned to stay at home as London is hit by toxic air from Germany (2017)
#80

Yes, for the UK Government, not City Hall. If certain vehicles should be taken off the road, there needs to be national action, not action by individual towns and cities.


#81

This may be technically correct, but is unhelpful, because the issue is a very much a localised one. In practice, it would make sense that UK Government has devolved responsibility to tackle local pollution to City Hall, but I’m not sure whether that’s actually the case.

I expect that the government would have asked the Mayor to come up with an answer to the pollution challenge from Brussels, and that is what has happened.

Should the only remaining available measure be a driving ban (which would be the most drastic course of action), UK Government would also most likely ask City Hall (and other local authorities elsewhere) to enforce it, so they’re acting on behalf either way.


#82

Household cleaning products as bad for lung function as smoking, study finds

A headline in the (now behind paywall) Telegraph.

The science on causes of lung disease is in flux and I wouldn’t bank on any of it. Is it not the case that in many respects air quality in London has improved? Low sulphur diesel; unleaded petrol; industrial emissions now much reduced in London, cigarette smoke banished in social spaces … etc.

The Independent has the story too:


#83

An update from the Environment, Health, Transport and Environmental Audit committees: