Brockwell Park loses a chunk due to junction alterations at Herne Hill Junction

[London_Calling]

I'm no expert but what confused me about the proposal was that I could see how busses would move very much more smoothly through the junction, I didn't see how cars would move better - pretty much the same configuration at the lights (two lanes at the lights rapiding reducing to one a few car lengths back).

In other words it looked like a TfL friendly proposal - of course pedestrians also benefit but that could be done anyway.

 

[billythefish]

There seem to be so many posts about traffic flow...

It's the pedestrians and cyclists who are going to come off best with this scheme - by miles.

That junction is one of the most scary I know in London now - just try getting from the park gate to the station with two young toddlers, with no clue as to when the traffic will start moving in on you.

If a few square metres of tarmac in the park will be lost, then I think that is a tiny price to pay to make the park more approachable and easier access. It's hardly an area of the park where people stop and hang out anyway (unless you're drinking Tennants Extra from a paper bag by the toilet block).

 

[London_Calling]

There seem to be so many posts about traffic flow...

That junction is one of the most scary I know in London now - just try getting from the park gate to the station with two young toddlers, with no clue as to when the traffic will start moving in on you.

I know, I've done it quite often - not my kids though.

The answer to you point is . . . pedestrian lights. You don't need to take a chunk of the park for those.

As the post before yours says, it does seem to be a TfL friendly proposal - I'm happy to be educated if anyone has a pursuasive view?

 

[cllr]

There seem to be so many posts about traffic flow...

If a few square metres of tarmac in the park will be lost, then I think that is a tiny price to pay to make the park more approachable and easier access. It's hardly an area of the park where people stop and hang out anyway (unless you're drinking Tennants Extra from a paper bag by the toilet block).

I've heard this argument before (indeed it was put last night by a Labour Councillor) but I think it deserves some criticism. After all, why is there a tarmac area at that entrance to the park? It is of course because the pathways meet at the entrance. All the park entrances are like this.

So what would happen if you took that area out of the park? Well you'd have to move the entrance back and tarmac over the grass behind the new entrance. So the result? The 1000 square metres of park to be lost would be mostly grassed.

That is before you start looking at

a) the fact that some of the 1000 square metres to be lost would extend beyond the tarmac area

b) the principle that total area designated for parks should not be lost just for traffic schemes, housing or anything else.

There is still time to produce a scheme that doesn't mean reducing the size of Brockwell Park. But if the promoters of this scheme don't search for a compromise soon I don't think it will ever happen.

It was recently revealed that the different council departments all thought others would be in charge of making an application to the Government to reduce parkland as is required by Section 17 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967.

As I understand this process, if there were any objections (and I'm pretty sure there would be) then there would need to be a full public inquiry. This could delay the scheme for some time.

Alternatively a compromise scheme could avoid this delay.

 

[Structaural]

Yep they need a pelican on the bit between the park and the other side of Norwood Road.
(and it can peck the eyes out of the fuckers who drive to Crystal palace who are the main instigators of this development).

 

[billythefish]

So what would happen if you took that area out of the park? Well you'd have to move the entrance back and tarmac over the grass behind the new entrance. So the result? The 1000 square metres of park to be lost would be mostly grassed.

That is before you start looking at

a) the fact that some of the 1000 square metres to be lost would extend beyond the tarmac area

b) the principle that total area designated for parks should not be lost just for traffic schemes, housing or anything else.

I take your point about the tarmac area moving rather than being lost... but I still think the benefits to pedestrians and cyclists is being undersold by many critics of the scheme. It needs more than just pedestrian lights - you're taking your life in your hands cycling from Half Moon Lane to Dulwich Road, or crossing to / from Railton Road.
If bus flows improve (surely something we want in these environmentally concious days?) and access to the park improves, this is a huge benefit to local amenity and the tiny area (in proportion to the rest of the park) lost is a reasonable price to pay?

 

[gaijingirl]

It's the pedestrians and cyclists who are going to come off best with this scheme - by miles.

Actually LCC are against it saying that there is very little merit in it for cyclists. I am a cyclist myself and I have had a hairy time of it at that junction myself (falling off once and losing a pannier with some expensive IT equipment in it into the bargain). But the current proposals seem to be pretty ill-considered and not the magic wand that a lot of people seem to think!

 

[Brixton Hatter]

It's just ridiculous. Chop a bit of park off to make room for more cars. Then when the cars overfill the capacity of the junction again - then what? Chop some more off? No - find an alternative solution!!

i'm with gg on this. it's a matter of principle. if we lose this small bit of park, where does it stop? chop another bit off the corner of the park near brockwell park gardens to improve the junction there? chop a bit off on brixton water lane to widen the road? chop something off myatts fields to widen the road and build new houses?

the london parks, which we are so lucky to have, have been protected for over a hundred years. why change it now? it could be the slippery slope...

 

[corporate whore]

i'm with gg on this. it's a matter of principle. if we lose this small bit of park, where does it stop? chop another bit off the corner of the park near brockwell park gardens to improve the junction there? chop a bit off on brixton water lane to widen the road? chop something off myatts fields to widen the road and build new houses?

Bit alarmist, no? BPG isn't a busy junction, and there's houses between the park and BWL, so that's a no go.

I'm broadly in favour of these plans, although I don't use Brockwell Park so much since I moved out of Herne Hill. That junction's offensive to pedestrians, it needs to change.

I still think the pavement that hugs the park on Norwood Road is irrelevant and could be removed, possible creating enough room for a congestion-relieving third lane of traffic.

 

[Crispy]

Extra lanes do not relieve congestion, they just fill up with traffic.

 

[corporate whore]

Extra lanes do not relieve congestion, they just fill up with traffic.

Cute - one of the main problems facing Norwood Road is the tail back in all directions from the junction at Dulwich/Norwood/Railton. Buses regularly snake back over the junction, waiting to stop outside Costcutter, then get hemmed in by parked cars outside Ollies or whatever.

An exra bus lane heading south, may not relieve congestion overall, but it would speed traffic through the junction

 

[Crispy]

I will admit to being purposefully flip there
Yes, bus lanes are great - more the merrier!

 

[London_Calling]

That's what it boils down to here though init. Once you take out the 'ancillary' benefits, it's either a bigger, faster, better bus lane or the park as it is?

 

[hendo]

I'm broadly in favour of these plans, although I don't use Brockwell Park so much since I moved out of Herne Hill. That junction's offensive to pedestrians, it needs to change.

.

That is true - nearly been killed there a few times. But would lopping off the park make it any safer?

 

[corporate whore]

Possibly not, but the plans look like there's proper provision for pedestrians to cross and one less road to navigate, albeit the top of Railton, which is fairly safe as is.

Apropos of nothing, traffic always flowed smoother when the lights had their severe bout of regular failure a coupla years back..

 

[trashpony]

I was at the park today and very little grassed area will be lost. That junction is a bloody nightmare though - trying to cross it with a pushchair when there are no pedestrian lights on most of the roads is very scary.

 

[Structaural]

For those who can protest

Just been sent this:

Special Council Meeting - Thursday
A number of Councillors have called a Special Meeting of Lambeth Council to discuss the proposed road over Brockwell Park and it takes place this Thursday, 24th April at 7pm in Lambeth Town Hall.

The Friends of Brockwell Park will be sending a delegation to address the Council and we hope you will turn up to support them. We shall be meeting on the Town Hall steps at 6.30pm. The meeting starts at 7pm.


The motion to be discussed is here.

The FoBP has set up a fighting fund to continue our efforts to stop the proposed road. If you want to donate, contact the FoBP Hon Treasurer, 89 Delawyk Crescent, London SE24 9JD

We have recently discovered Lord Rosebery's stirring words when he opened Brockwell Park in 1892. You can see the speech here - his words make it clear he did not anticipate the effects of local government vandalism.

The two links are:

link1

speech

 

[gaijingirl]

Another update on the situation:

While the Lottery is spending to restore the Park, Lambeth Council plans to partially destroy it with a new road. The scheme can only go ahead if the Mayor of London funds it. We ask him not to authorise funds until alternatives have been considered and there is proper consultation.

Although Lambeth pushed the scheme through at a farcical Planning meeting, there now has to be Ministerial consent after a 28 day public consultation. (Naturally Lambeth didn't tell anyone about it - there are three tiny notices at the Herne Hill Gates.)


Contact the Mayor and the Minister

We have set up a fighting fund and welcome comments and offers of help. Please contact savethepark@brockwellpark.com Send donations to the FoBP Treasurer, 89 Delawyk Crescent London SE24 9JD

 

[Xeno]

Many here are missing the point. When this scheme was first put up, the idea was to improve the flow of traffic round that corner from Norwood Road into Dulwich Road, nothing else. Let's also remember that it was made harder for pedestrians to cross on that corner, also to help improve the flow of traffic. I am pretty certain, also, that in spite of this there have been no pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries there (otherwise the supporters would have been going on about it all the time).

So, when the council and TfL said to themselves, "how are we going to sell a Make-Cars-Go-Faster-Scheme to the public?", they came up with the idea of improving the junction from the pedestrian and cyclist point of view.

The simple fact is: you don't have to lop off a corner of the park to make the junction safer for foot and cycle traffic.

I also seriously wonder how they can say cycling and walking would be safer. If you look at the detailed plans you can see that the "slip road" which will go around the corner has no traffic lights or zebra crossing. At least there is a set of traffic lights there now.

Oh yes, the council consulted about 2000 people in the immediate area, not park users or people in other areas. They got a majority to support it. Over 4000 people signed a petition against it, and they are being ignored.

One more interesting footnote. This was a party political issue. Labour councillors voted in favour of the scheme: Tories and Lib Dems voted against. How does a humble traffic scheme become party political?

 

[corporate whore]

Xeno poster is correct.

Any discussion on alterations to that junction should be postponed until a pedestrian is hurt or, preferably, killed accessing the park.

Or am I missing the point?

 

[kyser_soze]

plans to partially destroy it with a new road

Yet more hyperbole from FoBP...

 

[christonabike]

Can't understand why they want to chop a bit off the park?

Never had trouble on my bike and certainly haven't had trouble crossing roads on foot - if some find it tricky, install zebra crossings, or put a green man crossing up, cheaper all round

If there's loads of vehicles backed up in a jam, go another way, and/or use public transport, and/or eff off, leave the park alone

Or compulsory purchase the building around the roads and build a big fuck off carriageway so loads of cars can eventually go nowhere

Wankers

 

[Bob]

One more interesting footnote. This was a party political issue. Labour councillors voted in favour of the scheme: Tories and Lib Dems voted against. How does a humble traffic scheme become party political?

That's what politics is really - making decisions. All decisions are political in some way.

I suspect the local politics is that there are a small number of residents on Rhymer Street and the very top of Railton road who will have less traffic due to the scheme - and the Labour councillors are trying to keep them happy. Presumably they think a small number of very motivated people matter more to them than a larger number of slightly disgruntled people.

 

[lang rabbie]

I suspect there is also a large chunk of petty-minded town hall grudgets to it as well. Keith Fitchett was defeated in the 2006 council elections and became a leading light of the Friends of Brockwell Park.

Whatever people's views on Keith regarding housing, he has been a doughty defender of Brockwell Park for twenty years. However, I increasingly think that some people in the Labour Party are determined to vote contrary to Keith Fitchett on any issue as a matter of principle.

 

[Xeno]

I think Bob and lang Rabbie may have something there. The Herne Hill Society were in favour of the scheme also because it has something to do with pedestrianising the end of Railton Road outside the railway station and the regeneration bla bla going on there. It's probably a case of the Herne Hill Volvo estate crowd getting Tessa Jowell and the local Labour councillors all lined up like the middle class warriors they are.

However, I note that the Labour councillors who were all in favour of the scheme on an early vote, before the backlash and park users twigged what was about to happen, were nowhere to be seen at the council meeting where just two voted in favour, tying it with the Lib Dems and Tories, with the chair casting his vote in favour.

It still bugs me how they got it through on the idea of making the crossings safer when the new scheme has no traffic lights or zebra crossing outside the park gate.

 

[gaijingirl]

Sorry to bump an old thread and for the lengthy C&P but I just received this from FoBP and thought it may interest some people here...

Final Push to Save Brockwell Park
gaijingirl - we need you to help give a final push to help save Brockwell Park.

The Friends of Brockwell Park raised £2,000 to commission an alternative plan to Lambeth Council's mega-road across the Park. We are very grateful to IMA Transport Planning who did the work largely pro bono. We asked them to work to Lambeth's own objectives for the scheme (even though we don't agree with them). We now have a scheme that takes only half the parkland.

Lambeth wanted to go ahead without even considering our alternative but Boris Johnson, Mayor of London said he would not release funding for the scheme unless there was "proper consideration" of our alternative. Lambeth appointed the author of the original scheme to do this "consideration". He informed TfL there had been an independent assessment of the two schemes which favoured his own scheme.

The truth is there has never been any assessment of the new scheme in terms of either Lambeth's or TfL's stated objectives, never been any cost benefit analysis and never been any costing of the extra 500sq m of parkland that Lambeth want to destroy.

On the basis of Lambeth's assurance, Boris Johnson has now said the funds should be released.

In January Lambeth invited the Friends of Brockwell Park to submit the new plan for planning permission and we are going ahead (it is costing us a further £2,000 to do this). But now Lambeth are saying they are starting the works to destroy the Park before even giving this consideration to the alternative scheme.

We ask you to appeal to Boris Johnson to reconsider and demand an independent evaluation of the two schemes.

It is very easy to do this: just click this link

http://www.brockwellpark.com/herne_hill_junction/contact_the_mayor.php

 

[fjydj]

Done... nice easy to use link that, BTW

 

[ChrisSouth]

Lambeth Council's mega-road across the Park.

This is a little disingenuous on the part of FOBP. It's hardly a 'mega road' is it?

What does the Herne Hill Society have to say?

 

[Bob]

This is a little disingenuous on the part of FOBP. It's hardly a 'mega road' is it?

What does the Herne Hill Society have to say?

I'm not sure.

But my strong impression is that only the people who live right up near the station on Railton road & Rhymer / Hurst streets are in favour of this.

Everyone else I've asked in the Herne Hill area is against this - hence the FOBP petition getting 4,000 or so signatures compared to 200 or so for the petition in favour.

 

[pboi]

I am in favour. fucking guardian readers with nothing better to do than complain about this.