Herne Hill news, chitter chatter and gossip
- Thread starter choochi
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Hernians might be interested to know that the Herne Hill Society commissioned a report on restructuring the traffic flow around the railway bridge near the station. Here are some salient documents:
This stuff is percolating onto "NextDoor" now - under a distraught message from London about the stalking guy who is in your area.
I searched the Herne Hill Forum website and there is nothing about it there. What is going on?
re. Herne Hill Forum web-site - it's absent from their list of 'Projects' on the web-site and nothing in the 'News' section. Only way I can see is to trawl through the Committee minutes which are not especially consistent or self-explanatory. Unclear to me whether there is any kind of Transport Committee or such-like working on this.
All seems very secretive on the face of it.
Have there been any community engagement meetings on this?
All seems very secretive on the face of it.
Have there been any community engagement meetings on this?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Took me about 10 seconds to find this
editor
hiraethified
I've published their proposals here so it's definitely out in the open now!
Herne Hill Forum publishes proposals for road closures and healthier routes into Herne Hill
The Herne Hill Forum team have published their proposals to kickstart a community discussion about how to improve Herne Hill Junction, with a snazzy CGI animation (below) showing the possible chang…
www.brixtonbuzz.com
urbanspaceman
Well-Known Member
As far as I can see, the HH Forum was keeping the (quite substantial) work done on this project private or secret or confidential or proprietary - whichever word you prefer.
Then, last week, a couple of Conservative activists circulated a leaflet about it.
I publicised this leaflet on Nextdoor, and some people started commenting.
On Friday, at 2pm, I sent the HHF an email, asking for more info about this work.
At 5pm, HHF issued a message, going public about the project. This may or may not have been a reaction to my earlier email.
Then, last week, a couple of Conservative activists circulated a leaflet about it.
I publicised this leaflet on Nextdoor, and some people started commenting.
On Friday, at 2pm, I sent the HHF an email, asking for more info about this work.
At 5pm, HHF issued a message, going public about the project. This may or may not have been a reaction to my earlier email.
editor
hiraethified
I can't say I like their new website very much, by the way...
sparkybird
ask the bird...
It's also getting attention on other local SM from anti LTN people who are posting it as if it's a done deal. I've tried to point out that it's a suggestion from a local community group and that any one of us could make suggestions, draw a map and put it online. It's not been proposed or adopted by any council. There would need to be a consultation before any changes were made
My opinion isn't very welcome....
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Do you have any comments on the plans themselves?.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
My main reaction to what's proposed is that it doesn't really solve the problem of how to get everything under the bridge. There just isn't enough space to get two lanes of traffic, a two way segregated cycle path, and decent footpaths through. What they have shown has some pretty narrow sections of pedestrian footpath. Arguably they are no worse than what's there at them moment, but on those narrow sections pedestrians would be right next to the cycle way and I don't think that would feel comfortable at all. Inevitably pedestrians and cyclists would be straying into each other's territory creating conflicts.
I don't know what the solution is. Ideally you could take the cyclists through the viaduct elsewehere - but there isn't anywhere else.
I think the first step should be to make a decent width footway that people will feel safe on. Then work out how you are going to get bicycles and motor vehicles through. Could it be done with traffic signals, so that motor traffic flows in each direction alternately? I'm sure that would cause outrage. Is there some way that cyclists wait at a light, and are let through alternately with motor vehicles?
The first impression of what's shown is that cyclists are given too much priority. I'm more than happy for cyclists to be given priority over motor traffic, but the cycle infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to compromise pedestrian comfort and convenience. I don't see that what they propose improves things much for pedestrians.
I don't know what the solution is. Ideally you could take the cyclists through the viaduct elsewehere - but there isn't anywhere else.
I think the first step should be to make a decent width footway that people will feel safe on. Then work out how you are going to get bicycles and motor vehicles through. Could it be done with traffic signals, so that motor traffic flows in each direction alternately? I'm sure that would cause outrage. Is there some way that cyclists wait at a light, and are let through alternately with motor vehicles?
The first impression of what's shown is that cyclists are given too much priority. I'm more than happy for cyclists to be given priority over motor traffic, but the cycle infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to compromise pedestrian comfort and convenience. I don't see that what they propose improves things much for pedestrians.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
There is about 3.5 lanes of motor traffic at the moment, cutting that down to two would free up space.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, but they are showing it cut down to two, then a two way cycleway inserted. The result is several narrow points on the pavements that I've marked with red arrows below - the ones on the left are about 1.8m wide and on the right 1.4m.
1.8m is barely enough width for two wheelchairs or prams to pass.
There is no information in the proposal to explain the anticipated consequences of constraining the motor traffic to 2 lanes + closing Milkwood Rd. (at the junction) - except, wrt Milkwood Rd., to recognise (page 15) that "Scheme should be considered as part of a wider LTN".
The fact that they haven't got any traffic volume/congestion data for Herne Hill (the Road) + Norwood Rd. suggests no meaningful analysis has been used to inform the design.
The fact that they haven't got any traffic volume/congestion data for Herne Hill (the Road) + Norwood Rd. suggests no meaningful analysis has been used to inform the design.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I said pretty clearly that I was commenting on how they had informed the design.
Two-thirds (4 out of 6 major roads) of a full data set has been used to inform the design, since that is all they have and most of that is 'estimated'. No assumptions have been outlined about how the data has been extrapolated.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
If they are pedestrianising Mirkwood rd though that would mean being able to walk down there to use the railway tunnel.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
A bit of a diversion if you want to get from, say, Half Moon Lane to the park though.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
I don’t get how the cycle lane rejoins on the south side? If you were going south, same for Dulwich rd.
About the secrecy there was no intention of communicating this work (dated July 2021) at this stage and it does seem that it was only pressure from activists that achieved its release now. The Nov. 2021 minutes state: "The proposals are not to be shared publicly until after the elections next year."
They had however shared it with elected councillors in both Lambeth and Southwark leaving any other prospective candidates for the May elections at a disadvantage.
If this was a private organisation then such tactics might be all very well but for a public Forum which trumpets community engagement I am not sure this is how to go about things.
It's still not on their web-site
They had however shared it with elected councillors in both Lambeth and Southwark leaving any other prospective candidates for the May elections at a disadvantage.
If this was a private organisation then such tactics might be all very well but for a public Forum which trumpets community engagement I am not sure this is how to go about things.
It's still not on their web-site
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
"Outside of project scope"
Although it makes very good sense to have a two-way cycle lane on the West side of Norwood and Dulwich roads, given the lack of Westbound junctions.
RubyToogood
RubyTwobikes
I don't understand this proposal.
Speaking as someone who goes through HH regularly on a bicycle, the main thing I want to do when I'm going north is to get onto the LTN up Railton Rd. There's a half-baked shared use thing that takes you through the station forecourt, but no very good way to get into it*. This proposal would just stop that and take you up Dulwich Rd, so presumably you'd have to go round the block into RR after that. Which really breaks up the quiet route. And would leave you having to turn right across the traffic.
Speaking as someone who goes through HH regularly on a motorbike, particularly now I can't go through Dulwich Village, I'm very grateful that I'm not being stopped from doing this too as it's basically my through route to anywhere useful.
I should also point out that I don't just go through HH, I am an active user of the area.
*There is also not a very good way to get out of it when going south - there's a light for you, but usually when it's green traffic is backed up and you can't get through it.
Speaking as someone who goes through HH regularly on a bicycle, the main thing I want to do when I'm going north is to get onto the LTN up Railton Rd. There's a half-baked shared use thing that takes you through the station forecourt, but no very good way to get into it*. This proposal would just stop that and take you up Dulwich Rd, so presumably you'd have to go round the block into RR after that. Which really breaks up the quiet route. And would leave you having to turn right across the traffic.
Speaking as someone who goes through HH regularly on a motorbike, particularly now I can't go through Dulwich Village, I'm very grateful that I'm not being stopped from doing this too as it's basically my through route to anywhere useful.
I should also point out that I don't just go through HH, I am an active user of the area.
*There is also not a very good way to get out of it when going south - there's a light for you, but usually when it's green traffic is backed up and you can't get through it.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Isn't that exactly what this scheme is trying to solve? The link between norwood road and railton road is effectively via the crossing seen here, so it takes you from a segregated cycleway (at right of image, on what's currently the road slipway) across the main road by a controlled crossing, then at the left of image you can see a kind of crossroads, with a stub arm at its left, which would put you onto that shared space area on railton road.
RubyToogood
RubyTwobikes
That stub arm though takes you up Dulwich Rd, no? Perhaps you can also go straight up Railton via the shared use area.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I dont' know, it's not exactly friendly. I've had drivers undertake me at speed while I'm waiting to turn before now and theres often a squeeze of bi-directional buses there.
This proposal puts paid to the 'theres no space' arguments.
I agree that those two squeezed pavement sections aren't good (though narrow pavement beside cycleway is a lot more comfortable than narrow pavement beside motor traffic), but overall it looks like it creates more space for pedestrians around the junction in general.
Looking at street view I'd put money that the designers have kept the pavement width there exactly the same as it is now under the bridge - ie no disbenefit for pedestrians..
I wonder if it could be made to work with one wide pavement under the bridge rather than a narrow one on either side? What maybe should have happened was for network rail to have created a way through when they redeveloped the shops, rather than having a new unit that opens onto the narrow pavement under the bridge.The outrage and conspiracy theories about this are a bit rich though. This seems the very definition of resident led proposals - the councils haven't come up with anything so the local community group - which is long established, is clear about how it is constituted and how you join, and would appear to have an elected committee - has developed a proposal to stimulate discussion about what is possible. That all the usual suspects are screaming about it tells you all you need to know.
"We all want less traffic and clean air" says the Dulwich conservative leaflet that's doing the rounds, while just like the conservatives in Lambeth, opposing any and every measure that might actually lead to less traffic and clean air.
Last edited:
snowy_again
Slush
Supposedly getting KenCycles / Boris Bikes / Santander bikes, but not sure whether it’s just a manifesto pledge
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
That would be handy
Similar threads
