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



## gaijingirl (Mar 16, 2007)

I got a letter from FoBP yesterday and this info is also on their site for anyone who is interested.  You might know that there has long been plans afoot to redesign the difficult Herne Hill junction.  The latest plan involves cutting 1,000 sq metres off the Park in order to make a traffic island of some description...   Anyway, understandably FoBP are totally opposed to this and this Saturday will be forming a (very civilised I should imagine  ) human chain along the proposed new boundary - meet at 2pm at the Herne Hill gate if you'd like to help.

More info on their site here.


----------



## T & P (Mar 16, 2007)

Out goes Pissheads Corner as well I guess...


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2007)

Hmm....

There's reference to it on the herne hill society website too:

http://www.hernehillsociety.org.uk/ 

along with a link to a proper drawing of the scheme.

I don't think it's quite as terrible as it seems on the FoBP website.
It seems that most of the corner being shaved off isn't becoming roadway but is used for what looks like a cycle track to avoid the junction.

I don't want to see bits of the park disappearing but in this case it might be justified by the benefits for pedestrians and cyclists in the area around the junction.

That bit of the park is mostly paved over at the moment anyway, isn't it?

That said I don't know much about it other than having had a look at that drawing.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2007)

So has anyone actually got a picture of the actual scheme with a legend on it? The FoBP site gives you nothing except some guff about 16 double decker buses and the Herne Hill Society link to the official pdf is lacking any kind of guide to what the various shades of colour mean...but it does look like lots of extra cycle stuff and making it easier for peds...

personally I'd not object to another lane's worth of road cut out from the SE side of the park so the London-bound side is wide enough to stick a bus lane in from Brockwell park rise to link to the current one - the current arrangement with the bottleneck at the T-juntion with Rosendale is useless, and takes on average 10 mins for my bus in the morning to get through when it should take 2.


----------



## Structaural (Mar 16, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> So has anyone actually got a picture of the actual scheme with a legend on it? The FoBP site gives you nothing except some guff about 16 double decker buses and the Herne Hill Society link to the official pdf is lacking any kind of guide to what the various shades of colour mean...but it does look like lots of extra cycle stuff and making it easier for peds...
> 
> personally I'd not object to another lane's worth of road cut out from the SE side of the park so the London-bound side is wide enough to stick a bus lane in from Brockwell park rise to link to the current one - the current arrangement with the bottleneck at the T-juntion with Rosendale is useless, and takes on average 10 mins for my bus in the morning to get through when it should take 2.



click the link above your post and then click 'Herne Hill Junction' there's a PDF you can download/view.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 16, 2007)

yeah, but the problem with that plan is it has NO LEGEND with which to tell me what that bloody great big lumpy thing with a tree is.

TBH I can't really stand to agree with FoBP - 100m2 is fuck all out of a park the size of Brockwell and the boozerbench can always be moved again...


----------



## aurora green (Mar 16, 2007)

I think 1000 sq meters off the park is hell of a lot, and this plan really stinks.

Our park is precious.

Chopping off bits of it, in an attempt sustain the unsustainable is plain wrong.
It's a shame the congestion charge couldn't be extended South.... 
We will never get that bit of park back, our green space continues to shrink, and every bit is worth saving.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 16, 2007)

A strip of land 100m x 10m represents an enormous value.  It should only be taken if there are clear and firm plans to add an equivalent area to the park asap.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 16, 2007)

See - as a cyclist and pedestrian, I feel quite well served by the fact there's a bloody great big park to cycle and walk around - I always cut through the park on my bike rather than take the road - so I don't feel especially like I want to lose a chunk to improve my cycling and walking prospects - iyswim!!

Obviously something needs to be done about that junction but there must be a better way?

Plus I honestly think giving more space to cars will just mean more space filled with cars and less green - basically what Aurora has expressed much more eloquently in her post.  

How much park will we need to chop up over the years to make more room for cars?


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 17, 2007)

Have people really been talking about this for three years without agreement  

2003 thread on Herne Hill junction


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 17, 2007)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Have people really been talking about this for three years without agreement
> 
> 2003 thread on Herne Hill junction



Does that really surprise you??


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 17, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> iyswim!!



Sorry know this is off-topic but what is iyswim?


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 17, 2007)

Papingo said:
			
		

> Sorry know this is off-topic but what is iyswim?



If you see what I mean


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 17, 2007)

Thank you!


----------



## aurora green (Mar 17, 2007)

Thanks so much gaijingirl for letting us know about this. 

My young son and I went to the hand holding thing this afternoon. It was very civilised indeed. 
A strong show of support against this unacceptable proposal.

Being in the park, just intensified the feeling that taking any bit of it away to relieve traffic is completely misguided.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 17, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> See - as a cyclist and pedestrian, I feel quite well served by the fact there's a bloody great big park to cycle and walk around - I always cut through the park on my bike rather than take the road - so I don't feel especially like I want to lose a chunk to improve my cycling and walking prospects - iyswim!!
> 
> Obviously something needs to be done about that junction but there must be a better way?
> 
> ...



it's a tough one. Pedestrianising the area in front of the Station is a nice idea though. Opportunity cost i guess


----------



## pugwash (Mar 18, 2007)

Dan U said:
			
		

> it's a tough one. Pedestrianising the area in front of the Station is a nice idea though. Opportunity cost i guess



Yes that would be lovely!!  There's definitely a lot to be done in that area - I just don't want to see us lose a bit of the park to make more way for cars!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 18, 2007)

pugwash said:
			
		

> Yes that would be lovely!!  There's definitely a lot to be done in that area - I just don't want to see us lose a bit of the park to make more way for cars!



It depends whether the improvements are to make way for more cars, or to make the buses move more easily and make that junction safer to negotiate for pedestrians/cyclists. 

If it's the former I can see the objection - if it's the latter then I'm not bothered about losing a very small bit of the park. It's not exactly the nicest bit of Brockwell park anyway.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 18, 2007)

But I think you could make the junction easier to negotiate for peds/cyclists and easier for buses (and it's really not that bad for buses - nothing like trying to get up Brixton Road for example) _without_ chopping up the park.  Other options have been put forward that _don't_ involve removing such a large portion.  FoBP even conceded that a small amount could be removed - but this is rather a large chunk!

I don't think it's an either (lose bits of the park) or (have an unsafe junction for pedestrians/cyclists + no room for buses) situation.  Once cars get introduced to the equation it is, of course, more complicated then that!!  Despite this I still think a compromise could be reached.


----------



## sir.clip (Mar 19, 2007)

This is a right bugger this corner.. I thought for years that it would be a good thing to extend/widen the left turn, so as to allow for easy congestion flow..
As it is now the buses & cars just sit pumping out gas, If the corner of park land was removed & used for solving traffic congestion, I think its justifiable..
As long as it in corperates a cycle lane & also has a good crossing point for pedestrians as it does now..

I dont like the drunks & druggies who congregate in the corner that is in question & the old toilets are not getting used for anything at present.. The corner could in reality be used for easing traffic congestion & a safe bus terminous & bicycle rack area...  Its a shame green space is lost to traffic congestion.. But thats the sad reality of London Life.. I'd rather see flowing traffic, Than have the traffic jams & idle use of fuel thats is present every day along Norwood road..

I reckon they should cut the corner off but reclaim it from the car park next to the Lido.. 

Then bus services to the front of the Lido would be a little more frequent due to faster flowing traffic along norwood road & people traveling to the park or lido have less reason to drive.. 

Also the area of car park next to the Lido could be used for a really nice rockery or alpine garden..


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 19, 2007)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Thanks so much gaijingirl for letting us know about this.
> 
> My young son and I went to the hand holding thing this afternoon. It was very civilised indeed.
> A strong show of support against this unacceptable proposal.
> ...



It's not just to relieve traffic tho is it? The whole idea is to make that whole corner of Herne Hill a safer and less intimidating place to be - having had a better look at the plans they could probably shave maybe 20sqm off what's proposed, but it's far from simply a system to relieve traffic.

Besides, a 3x33m chunk of what is essentially unused park at the moment isn't really going to be noticed.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 19, 2007)

I agree that the left turn from Norwood Road is a bugger - I lost a pannier full of expensive things when I came off my bike there trying to squeeze through - but my own responsibility really.  I should have just cut through the park earlier on.

But this morning I was running around the park and as I ran across that (essentially unused????) corner I was looking at all the beautiful flowers planted there which always really cheer me up when they first appear in spring.  Then I was thinking about how at Christmas time if I ever come into Herne Hill by train the blue lights on the giant tree there always make me feel really happy to be coming home.  Then I thought about my neighbour who drinks in the drinkers' corner when he's not working (which is completely hidden now so as not to offend local sensibilities) and felt bad for him.  He's a nice guy, doesn't do anyone any harm - just likes a drink outside with his mates it seems.  As much as it annoyed me to have to squeeze through that junction I don't want to lose all those other benefits.  I'd certainly notice the loss of this part of park which I and my neighbours use on an almost daily basis.

Definitely something should be done with the toilet block though.

As I said before - there have been other proposals that involve taking much less of the park - or none at all.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 19, 2007)

But in fairness from the look of the plans that tree will still be there, and flowers are...well flowers, and by their very nature can be grown easily anywhere.

There probably is a compromise between the existing plan and doing nothing - i'd be interested to see where the records for previous proposals are and why they weren't acted on...


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 19, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> There probably is a compromise between the existing plan and doing nothing - i'd be interested to see where the records for previous proposals are and why they weren't acted on...



Yes - good point!


----------



## aurora green (Mar 19, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> It's not just to relieve traffic tho is it?




There is absolutely no way that slicing a bit off our park would be being proposed if wasn't to relieve traffic...


----------



## aurora green (Mar 19, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> But this morning I was running around the park and as I ran across that (essentially unused????) corner I was looking at all the beautiful flowers planted there which always really cheer me up when they first appear in spring.  Then I was thinking about how at Christmas time if I ever come into Herne Hill by train the blue lights on the giant tree there always make me feel really happy to be coming home.  Then I thought about my neighbour who drinks in the drinkers' corner when he's not working (which is completely hidden now so as not to offend local sensibilities) and felt bad for him.  He's a nice guy, doesn't do anyone any harm - just likes a drink outside with his mates it seems.  As much as it annoyed me to have to squeeze through that junction I don't want to lose all those other benefits.  I'd certainly notice the loss of this part of park which I and my neighbours use on an almost daily basis.



Top post!


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 19, 2007)

aurora green said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no way that slicing a bit off our park would be being proposed if wasn't to relieve traffic...



You do know that 'traffic' applies to people & bikes as well as cars, buses etc don't you?


----------



## aurora green (Mar 19, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You do know that 'traffic' applies to people & bikes as well as cars, buses etc don't you?



....


Bikes and people wouldn't have a problem with that junction, if a way could be found to reduce the number of cars and lorrys passing through.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 19, 2007)

I am a cyclist, pedestrian and bus user.  

With regards to that junction I've never really had any problems with the buses there and compared to say Brixton Road/Walworth Road it's positively flowing.

As for cycling/walking - I'd far rather walk/cycle inside the current boundary of the park than have a bit lopped off it just so I can do the exactly the same journey outside the park!


----------



## sir.clip (Mar 19, 2007)

If they cut off the corner to allow for easing of the congestion along Norwood road, it would be a far more sensible thing to use the car park next to the lido in the park as a flower bed & drinkers retreat..

I have been walking along the street On the very corner, outside of the park. Only to have had a near miss from a car mounting the pavement in order to squeeze around the corner.. 
I belive that if they expanded the road it would be safer for pedestrians & ease the back up of traffic along norwood road..

I really belive that the hobos of the park however lovely & charming they are will find anoher place to settle with in the walls of brockwell park..
And again i say that the park would benefit from re-using the car park next to the lido for a far better park related use, IE flower bed or greenspace.. 
than just a dusty car park.


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 19, 2007)

Whatever happens, something needs to be done to improve pedestrian safety at the various crossings all round this junction.

I have seen near-misses with small children almost being flattened by illegal left turns out of the road from the station, and outside Stardust. there is such a jungle of traffic lights, and such short intervals for pedestrians to make it across - it can take 10 mins to cross the road with a straggling family of toddlers, bike and buggy - half of it on a narrow pedestrian space inbetween two lanes of thundering traffic. it is very very un-user-friendly for pedestrains - espcially those who can't make the mad dash in the 3 seconds the green man is showing for.


----------



## Winot (Mar 19, 2007)

OpalFruit said:
			
		

> Whatever happens, something needs to be done to improve pedestrian safety at the various crossings all round this junction.
> 
> I have seen near-misses with small children almost being flattened by illegal left turns out of the road from the station, and outside Stardust. there is such a jungle of traffic lights, and such short intervals for pedestrians to make it across - it can take 10 mins to cross the road with a straggling family of toddlers, bike and buggy - half of it on a narrow pedestrian space inbetween two lanes of thundering traffic. it is very very un-user-friendly for pedestrains - espcially those who can't make the mad dash in the 3 seconds the green man is showing for.



+1

Crossing with a pushchair can be all but impossible.  The junction *has* to be improved so it is safe to cross.  I'd love it if all the fuckers making unnecessary car journeys saw the light of day and cycled/walked everywhere, but it ain't gonna happen.  Politics is unfortunately the art of the possible.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 19, 2007)

I think that everyone agrees that the ped crossing situation is dangerous as it is.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 19, 2007)

so are they still doing this so they can pedestrainise in front of Herne Hill station?

As on the plans that were in the shops a while back that was one of the other benefits for doing this.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm not sure what you mean tbh.  I know that "pedestrianising" the front of HH station is a proposal - I don't think that's necessarily related to taking parkland though?  Or at least it shouldn't be - since they are, or should be, two completely separate issues.  

The plans are on here: http://www.hernehillsociety.org.uk/

It's worth a close read of John Brunton's statement I think.  It's not clear just how "pedestrianised" that section will be, he says closed to all "but large vehicles" - what does this mean exactly?  Are we talking the bin lorries in the mornings - or any large vehicles at all times?  It might not be the tables out in the road scenario!  For cyclists so far it just means the creation of one bike lane, which will mirror the internal road in the park anyway.  There will also be ASLs but surely you can make an ASL simply by moving the stop line back a couple of feet for the cars?  (not a planner so don't know about this).  

It just seems to me (and to be fair, Brunton also says this) that there's a lot of work to be done on this and it's not at all clear how it will help.  I'm suspicious really having seen other junctions (notably the Abbeville Road/Clapham Park road) go through repeated changes in short spaces of time but not actually improving much.

It would be very easy to take a bit of park and then discover it hasn't really helped anyone.  In fact, badly done it could even make matters worse. IMHO of course.


----------



## han (Mar 19, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> It would be very easy to take a bit of park and then discover it hasn't really helped anyone.



This is a very good point.

Sadly, what usually happens when we expand roads to make things easier for cars, is that the cars just increase in number to fill them....

Road widening/building is NOT a solution to the fact that there are too many cars - it's the CARS that are the problem!

It really saddens me that cars always have priority over sustainable modes of transport (legs, bicycles)....

And once a bit of green is gone - it's gone forever. We need more space for cars like we need a hole in the head!


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 19, 2007)

han said:
			
		

> And once a bit of green is gone - it's gone forever. We need more space for cars like we need a hole in the head!


I do think it's a shame they don't knock down some buildings instead.

They plan to do the same for this ridiculous across-the-river tram scheme too: rip out bits of Millennium Green at Waterloo to help them get round the corner. Knock down a shop or two for fuck's sake. No-one needs all that crap they're selling.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 19, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> It would be very easy to take a bit of park and then discover it hasn't really helped anyone.  In fact, badly done it could even make matters worse. IMHO of course.


Quite. My big worry is that they'll sort out that bit, traffic-wise and then less people will avoid the hell of those road junctions and it'll all snarl up again.......


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 19, 2007)

han said:
			
		

> This is a very good point.
> 
> Sadly, what usually happens when we expand roads to make things easier for cars, is that the cars just increase in number to fill them....
> 
> ...


Word.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Mar 19, 2007)

han said:
			
		

> This is a very good point.
> 
> Sadly, what usually happens when we expand roads to make things easier for cars, is that the cars just increase in number to fill them....
> 
> ...



han, you should stand for mayor of london. I'll vote for you.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 19, 2007)

So would I.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 19, 2007)

I've started campaigning in a small way.....note tagline.....


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Mar 19, 2007)

so have I, tagline....


----------



## Dan U (Mar 19, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean tbh.  I know that "pedestrianising" the front of HH station is a proposal - I don't think that's necessarily related to taking parkland though?  Or at least it shouldn't be - since they are, or should be, two completely separate issues.



I meant that when I originally read the proposals in a shop many months ago i understood it to mean that the whole area in front of the Station was being pedestrianised. This would then mean all the traffic going towards Dulwich and Tulse Hill would need to be re-routed and turning this corner of the park would facilitate that.

Certainly a lot of the shops in Herne Hill and the houses where the Number 3 bus turns in to the station approach were actively supporting this plan with posters etc. 

Reading the rest of your post it seems things may have moved on, as they have a habit of doing.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 19, 2007)

Viral campaign alert!......I think I may start a thread in the London forum.......


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Mar 19, 2007)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Viral campaign alert!......I think I may start a thread in the London forum.......



yeah! go for it!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 19, 2007)

Done....


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 19, 2007)

it's still going to be congested whatever they do, don't agree with encroaching on the park to that extent.  Maybe redoing the fence to allow a cycle lane.  The bottom line, there's a railway bridge and six roads meet, the proposal won't halt the congestion.


----------



## sir.clip (Mar 20, 2007)

> =DJ The bottom line, there's a railway bridge and six roads meet, the proposal won't halt the congestion.



I do not belive it will ease traffic congestion at any other point at the herne hill junction, Other than the traffic flow coming along Norwood road, coming from the direction of tulse hill/west norwood & the traffic that backs up rosendale & croxted road which desire to turn right into norwood road..
This traffic is the cause of many a problem.. 
And to open up the right hand turn & create a slip road On a filter light from Norwood road into Dulwich road is just such a good idea.. 

Then Reclaim the lost park by using the Lido's car park for a green space..

It is a simple & sensable solution, maybe a compromise but it will ease a certain amount of congestion & keep the traffic flowing... 

cars are crap & annoying & there are far to many of them in London. Untill Ken Or any other polotician pull there fingers out there arse holes and ban the quantity of motorvehicles aloud into a borough then The congestion will just multiply.. And green spaces will be eliminated.. I hate motorvehicles I really do.. But I see no point in allowing them to just sit & polute the streets through ignorance towards sensible road planning..

I like brockwell park I learnt to ride my bicycle there aged 4. I do not wish to see it chopped up into pieces But I know that the corner in question would allow for a smoother flow of traffic along norwood road.. After 33 years of traveling along that streach of road I could see the benifit from a filter light and slip lane..


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 20, 2007)

Lots of pro's and cons with this one, we all know the more roads = more traffic argument. 

This is such a difficult junction that I'd almost swap pedestrianising the area in front of the station for the piece of park. The problem with that is turning right onto Norwood Road coming from Brixton (Dulwich Road?) - need an extra lane to do that, maybe.

Hey, what about takking a piece of . . .  


It's a trricky one indeed, I'm sure TfL have a lot to do with this.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 20, 2007)

London_Calling said:
			
		

> ...I'm sure TfL have a lot to do with this.




Actually, according to the bods at the demo on Saturday, even TFL are against this scheme. (more about that  here)

There's a nice piece in the South London Press on page 3 today.


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 20, 2007)

if the problem is 6 roads all converging at the one spot where they can get under the railway line, why can't another railway crossing be negotiated somewhere? A bridge from the bend in railton Rd where there is a break in the housing to Milkwood Rd, perhaps! Or a tunnel under the railway embankment.

£10s of millions I suppose...to ease the traffic.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 20, 2007)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Actually, according to the bods at the demo on Saturday, even TFL are against this scheme. (more about that  here)
> 
> There's a nice piece in the South London Press on page 3 today.



Thanks for your link. It does say "TfL is curently working on a scheme to take much less of the park" - hmmm "much less" = some.

And TfL's "Heritage Advisor" agrees with the general sentiment expressed in this thread - he is, though, an Advisor, it's not TfL official policy.


----------



## pinewood (Mar 29, 2007)

*oasis*

Hands off Brockwell park!!!
Was like an oasis in the middle of a desert - when i used to live in good old Brixton in the 80´s


----------



## han (Mar 30, 2007)

http://www.brockwellpark.com/membership/petition.htm

I don't know if peeps already know about this but I've put a link up to it.


----------



## mulldome (Mar 30, 2007)

serious? no place is safe still. dey wud bild da car park on top of da hill if dey cud get away wid it.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 4, 2007)

In addition to the petition currently on the FoBP website - some of you may be interested in the following (from a member of FoBP):

"There is a council meeting at the town hall tonight and we are hoping to make our presence and our protest count!  Some of us will be outside from about 5.30 and then hopefully in the public gallery from about 7pm.

COME AND JOIN US!  Let them see that they can't just take a thousand metres of our park, our green space - so that cars, lorries, buses and coaches can pour through the junction at greater speed - causing us greater pollution!

Place: Lambeth Town Hall steps - from 5.30 tonight Wed. 4th July."


----------



## Crispy (Jul 4, 2007)

A quick thought: Surely moving traffic is less polluting that waiting/blocked traffic?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 4, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> A quick thought: Surely moving traffic is less polluting that waiting/blocked traffic?



Probably, dunno - but I don't suppose they'll call off the protest over their choice of words......


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 4, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> A quick thought: Surely moving traffic is less polluting that waiting/blocked traffic?



Yes it is - you get less localised particluates especially when traffic is kepy moving and in the grand scheme of things it helps use less fuel because they aren't accelerating/decelerating all the time.

Any links to any updated and easily understandable maps?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 4, 2007)

To be fair though, you build better roads and before you know it more traffic's coming down them. And before very long indeed you're back to the same slow pace and gridlock you were at before.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 4, 2007)

Not necesariily. You get that on m-ways and big a-roads because they are created as direct routes, but somewhere like this has a natural limit since it's only really useful for getting to certain places.

Funniest thing? Temp lights on some long roadworks on Norwood road have actually made the inbound 68 bus journey _quicker_ than it usually is...


----------



## tarannau (Jul 4, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Not necesariily. You get that on m-ways and big a-roads because they are created as direct routes, but somewhere like this has a natural limit since it's only really useful for getting to certain places.
> 
> Funniest thing? Temp lights on some long roadworks on Norwood road have actually made the inbound 68 bus journey _quicker_ than it usually is...



Aye, but many drivers I know specifically avoid that jourmey because of the congestion by the Half Moon. If the road's better, that way they'll come again.

Taking off a chunk of the park is a lazy solution that stinks of short termism imo.


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 11, 2007)

This  distorted campaign to  undermine the Herne Hill Junction campaihn  is being put about by a bunch of people  who are also supposed to be the Community's   Partner in the development of the Lottery Bid for BROCKWELL  PARK.
The aims of the Heritage Lottery  Bid    are inter alia   to improve the  entrance to Brockwell Park, to rebuild the toilets and to creat safe access to the park.   THE HLF bid includes none  of these things as the Council have  determined that these can be achieved through theHerne Hill Junction improvement plans and can be funded by Transport for London leaving the Lottery funds for other things such as pulling down the changing rooms and moving the paddling pool.

The About to be adopted Unitary  development plan allows  exceptioanlly for the tking  of a small piece of brockwell Park to allow this to happen  . Its probably about 1,000 sq mtrs and the park is 500,000  sq mtrs.

The toilets  have been closed for 4 years  so much for the effectivenes of the Fiends of  Brockwell Park.
This project is need for many reasons not least   to lead to a regeneration of the public realm in Herne Hill..


----------



## Structaural (Jul 11, 2007)

Ah the gentrifiers have arrived. 
It isn't going to do shit for congestion, if it does then the traffic will increase anyway negating any effect. 
I'm glad you've admitted your true intentions, to raise Herne Hill house prices.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 11, 2007)

This is the latest plan, for everyone's information.


----------



## dogmatique (Jul 11, 2007)

What's happening to the grey bits then?  Turning into road?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 11, 2007)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> What's happening to the grey bits then?  Turning into road?


New pavement


----------



## Jonti (Jul 11, 2007)

Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> This  distorted campaign to  undermine the Herne Hill Junction campaihn  is being put about by a bunch of people  who are also supposed to be the Community's  Partner in the development of the Lottery Bid for BROCKWELL  PARK...


Way to go bud, slur people with your first post.  

Perhaps the "bunch" you slur care about the park and green space in London -- and that's why they are happy to help make a lottery bid, but unhappy at giving park land up to the insatiable demands of the motor car?

FYI, I am not a member of the "bunch" of people you decry but nor do I want  I do not want to see Brockwell Park lose any land.  I will certainly oppose it unless there are firm and guaranteed plans to add back at least the same area.

Sure, the problem of road traffic crime around the junction is appalling. But I disagree that the best solution to criminals in motor cars is to pander to their demands.


----------



## beeboo (Jul 11, 2007)

Is the light grey 'road' area directly in front of the new park gate a cycle lane or road?

To be honest, the whole area round Herne Hill junction is horrible for pedestrians and generally unpleasant.

I'm not in favour of a bit of park being nibbled off because it's an easy option, but if this really is the best solution, than it's a very tiny piece of park to loose for hopefully a big benefit.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 11, 2007)

A better enforcement of the road traffic laws, and a pelican crossing spanning the Norwood Road would help a *lot*.

The petrol heads seem to want to make the junction so dangerous and intolerable it looks like a good idea to give in to their demands.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 11, 2007)

beeboo said:
			
		

> Is the light grey 'road' area directly in front of the new park gate a cycle lane or road?



The light grey areas are road (as opposed to segregated cycle lane).


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 11, 2007)

According to the FoBP website, there was an earlier proposal which improved the junction _and_ had cycle lanes which whilst it took some park, did not take nearly as much which ended up being opposed.  Friends of Brockwell Park are asking for a similar scheme.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 11, 2007)

Well, the pavement at the end of railton road is certainly an improvement, as is the junction opposite the half moon. But the brockwell park corner seems a bit odd to me.

I can see what they're trying to do by shifting the left-turn lane down - it means traffic can feed into it without getting in the way of the queue for the lights. But I don't see why such a large amount of park has to be taken up with this.




I might have overdone things a bit there, but why not something like that?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 11, 2007)

GG: Those are pretty useless cycle lanes though.

EDIT: and that proposal _takes away_ pavement from railton road...


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 11, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> GG: Those are pretty useless cycle lanes though.
> 
> EDIT: and that proposal _takes away_ pavement from railton road...



I don't think that FoBP are saying that particular proposal should be reinstated.  I think the point they're making is that if a proposal using less park is potentially possible (as you yourself question) - it should be further explored.

All this info is on their site - I'm just repeating what's been said - take a look at the correspondence they've put up there.  Nor am I a traffic planner.

I am not convinced, however, that there is no better solution than this.  I do think there is more than likely a way to make that junction safer without shaving off a large area of park - one less bit of green we won't be seeing again! And I'm, frankly, surprised that in general people wouldn't rather see this being explored rather than just go ahead and chop up the park!

ETA - and whilst the cycle lanes in the first proposal might be useless - at least someone was considering that cyclists might also want to use that junction - not just cars!


----------



## OpalFruit (Jul 12, 2007)

Taking park sounds bad - instinctively bad. But the bit of park being tinkered with is largely under asphalt anyway, and includes horrible unused (but much needed) toilets and unkempt pieces of land. (I hope the drinkers will be properly accommodated?). It seems to be pedestrian park users who are amongst the most disadvantage by the current traffic arrangements - crossing is anightmare, so if a bit of the park can be used, if the entrance to the park can be made welcoming and nice, then I could see that overall it could be of benefit.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2007)

OpalFruit said:
			
		

> Taking park sounds bad - instinctively bad. But the bit of park being tinkered with is largely under asphalt anyway, and includes horrible unused (but much needed) toilets and unkempt pieces of land. (I hope the drinkers will be properly accommodated?). It seems to be pedestrian park users who are amongst the most disadvantage by the current traffic arrangements - crossing is anightmare, so if a bit of the park can be used, if the entrance to the park can be made welcoming and nice, then I could see that overall it could be of benefit.


Pretty much how I see it. That junction is currently hideous for pedestrians, and that corner of the park is only ever walked through, not actually used.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 13, 2007)

Nah, minimal work is needed to free up the left turn out of Norwood Road into Dulwich Road. The lane only needs to be a couple of feet wider for a distance of about 10 feet. Then a proper pelican crossing over the Norwood Road would complete the job.

Think how many cars you could fit in a car park 100 metres long by 10 metres wide. Turning such a large chunk of Brockwell Park into a car park would do far more for local trade!


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 13, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> Ah the gentrifiers have arrived.
> It isn't going to do shit for congestion, if it does then the traffic will increase anyway negating any effect.
> I'm glad you've admitted your true intentions, to raise Herne Hill house prices.



Do you live in Rymer Street--- 350 plus bus movements per day and night  inthis tiny narrow Victorian  Road. Loud noise from  newly expanded posh pubs and late  night drinking.   

Public realm is not  just private housing . Its the shithole that is currently the end of Railton Road and corner of hurst Street  empty shops of which we have at least 18 in the immediate area.. and decaying   railway arches
There seem to be some activity in the six empty arches in Milkwood Road road at longlast and  buidling preparation has started on the old post office.
The schme I understand will pedestrainize   part of Ralton Road .
Haevnt you noticed  the  decay in the centre of Herne Hill


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 13, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I don't think that FoBP are saying that particular proposal should be reinstated.  I think the point they're making is that if a proposal using less park is potentially possible (as you yourself question) - it should be further explored.
> 
> All this info is on their site - I'm just repeating what's been said - take a look at the correspondence they've put up there.  Nor am I a traffic planner.
> 
> ...



The cycle lane is not now there it has been removed at the request of the cycling lobby in the interests of safety..   The  English Heritage brief   is to 
support the project taking   only a small part of the park. its a matter of definition.   £20,000  has been spent   additionally to  consider the options made by other   non engineering people  and they have all   come up with negative impact results.  This   schme will  improve lives of local residents pedestrians drinkers park users.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 13, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Pretty much how I see it. That junction is currently hideous for pedestrians, and that corner of the park is only ever walked through, not actually used.


I *walk* through that junction at least twice a day, and yes, the motor traffic makes it hideous and dangerous.  But the unpleasantly constricted and dangerous pavements under the railway bridge will not be made wider or more pleasant under the proposals.  And the danger from criminally irresponsible car drivers could be relieved by adequate Pelican crossings.

The argument that people walk through a park, so that space should be given over to road traffic seems illogical and perverse to me.


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 13, 2007)

pugwash said:
			
		

> Yes that would be lovely!!  There's definitely a lot to be done in that area - I just don't want to see us lose a bit of the park to make more way for cars!



So   have you got a solution.?


----------



## Structaural (Jul 13, 2007)

Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> Do you live in Rymer Street--- 350 plus bus movements per day and night  inthis tiny narrow Victorian  Road. Loud noise from  newly expanded posh pubs and late  night drinking.
> 
> Public realm is not  just private housing . Its the shithole that is currently the end of Railton Road and corner of hurst Street  empty shops of which we have at least 18 in the immediate area.. and decaying   railway arches
> There seem to be some activity in the six empty arches in Milkwood Road road at longlast and  buidling preparation has started on the old post office.
> ...



It's always been a bit of shithole and designed around cars rather than pedestrians (Clapham Common suffers the same fate). I've always thought that Rymer Street was a ludicrous detour for buses and cars to take, they need to change the way the junction works. Maybe come up with some crazy scheme like they did at Tulse Hill (fuck that's complicated).
Personally I don't want to see any more green space taken by road users, it's a slippery slope. More and more cars are on the road all the time in London and I don't want them catered for over and above the pedestrians and residents that live locally. That part of the park is full of people during the Country Show, it has flower beds and seats, leave it alone. 

Hey! hardly anyone uses the bit of grass that runs around Norwood Road, lets use that up too and make the street wider! That Park Lane could do with an extra lane - I wonder how residents around Hyde Park would feel about chopping a bit of that away.

Most of the traffic that goes through Herne Hill is passing through to the South Circular and they should just have to wait. Improve it for pedestrians, more pelican crossings - especially from the central reservation to the beginning of Norwood Road. Sod the traffic, you'll never relieve the pressure on it as more and more people drive, they're sitting comfortably enough.
I first went to that park when I was 8 years old, leave it alone.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2007)

Not sure how you can make the pavements under the arch much wider - there's only so much space.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 13, 2007)

Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> This   schme will  improve lives of local residents pedestrians drinkers park users.



Sorry - as a local resident and park user, I don't agree that it will improve my life.


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 14, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Not sure how you can make the pavements under the arch much wider - there's only so much space.



Get rid of the pavement(s) under the bridge and creat a new safe walkway through  existing arches is one idea.


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 14, 2007)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Sorry - as a local resident and park user, I don't agree that it will improve my life.


So try thinking outside your own envelope.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 14, 2007)

So the scheme isn't for the benefit of local residents and park users?

That's exactly what I thought!


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jul 14, 2007)

OpalFruit said:
			
		

> (I hope the drinkers will be properly accommodated?).



unfortunately, drinkers are the least consideration in their minds in schemes like this, they get pushed out everyone some bourgeois/puritan/upight citizens wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, plus they don't vote, so no electoral advantage to listen to their grievances and lobbying (especially after a few tinnies....) .

Drinkers of the World, rise up!

Rights for the Drinkers!


----------



## Tattie Boggle (Jul 14, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> So the scheme isn't for the benefit of local residents and park users?
> 
> That's exactly what I thought!


  You say it wont improve  your life  .....  well it will for thousands of others.
A nice brings over 4,000  people into Brockwell Park  and with the Lido open
that should be more.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 14, 2007)

Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> So try thinking outside your own envelope.



Is this some kind of cross between thinking outside the box and pushing the envelope?


----------



## Jonti (Jul 14, 2007)

Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> You say it wont improve  your life  .....  well it will for thousands of others.


Where did I say that? 

And who are these thousands who will have their lives improved by your road widening scheme?


----------



## OpalFruit (Jul 16, 2007)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> unfortunately, drinkers are the least consideration in their minds in schemes like this, they get pushed out everyone some bourgeois/puritan/upight citizens wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, plus they don't vote, so no electoral advantage to listen to their grievances and lobbying (especially after a few tinnies....) .
> 
> Drinkers of the World, rise up!
> 
> Rights for the Drinkers!



I agree that they are likely to be the last to be thought about, EXCEPT for the fact that 'containing' them addresses exactly the citizens you mention - plus those you might approve more of. Not much of the puritan in my make up, but as someone who has been bitten by one of the drinkers dogs, and had their shit (the drinkers, not the dogs) in my running shoes,  I am quite keen to see them accommodated in a way that allows them their rightful democratic use of the park while not impeding mine.

This whole thing can't be deliniated along class war lines, you know!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 16, 2007)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> unfortunately, drinkers are the least consideration in their minds in schemes like this, they get pushed out everyone some bourgeois/puritan/upight citizens wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, plus they don't vote, so no electoral advantage to listen to their grievances and lobbying (especially after a few tinnies....) .
> 
> Drinkers of the World, rise up!
> 
> Rights for the Drinkers!



What on EARTH are you talking about? The Brockwell Park Brew Crew have their own little seating area just to the left of the gates (as you walk in from HH) which was made for them about a year ago.


----------



## corporate whore (Jul 16, 2007)

Simple congestion-easing measure: remove the mostly unused pavement that runs up Norwood next to the park fence, creating another lane for traffic feeding left at HH into Dulwich Road. This helps ease the traffic back-up all the way to the Croxted Road junction that reallly fucks things up.

FWIW I reckon removing a scintilla of park is worthwhile if the junction at HH is made pedestrian safe.


----------



## goldengraham (Jul 25, 2007)

There's an artist's impression of the new junction here - it looks like the drinkers will be forming a circle in the middle of the new traffic island!

http://hernehillforum.blogspot.com/

It's a good debate about this on here. Personally though - I'm all for it.


----------



## beeboo (Jul 25, 2007)

I've passed that way a couple of times lately and I must say I'm a bit more perplexed about why they need to take away a chunk of park to improve the junction.  Overall I know it's only a small chunk but still, it's park.

On the other hand I nearly got run over at the rubbish pedestrian crossing - it really needs work, it's a shambles.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 25, 2007)

Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> Do you live in Rymer Street--- 350 plus bus movements per day and night  inthis tiny narrow Victorian  Road. Loud noise from  newly expanded posh pubs and late  night drinking.



i can't think of many worse roads in London for sending that volume of traffic and big buses down to be honest




			
				Tattie Boggle said:
			
		

> The schme I understand will pedestrainize   part of Ralton Road .
> Haevnt you noticed  the  decay in the centre of Herne Hill



yes i have. lot's of vacants and getting decaying one's at that.

opportunity cost here isn't it really


----------



## Rich (Aug 1, 2007)

*Latest Plans for Herne Hill Junction*

HERNE HILL JUNCTION PLANS

 SCHEME  DESIGN AND OPTIONS
 ARTIST'S IMPRESSION OF PARK ENTRANCE 

The latest proposals for the junction have been published on the herne hill society web site (below)

http://www.hernehillsociety.org.uk/

It appears that despite the initial plans been abandoned due to public outrage at losing part of the park, the new option been promoted Project Board involves moving the slip road just 4 meters towards the junction. This really does appear to me to be totally ignoring the concerns raised by the previous scheme. I'm all for regenerating this area of Herne Hill and improving pedestrian access to the park but this scheme just appears to be putting cars first by adding extra road width and capacity. This just seems so short sighted when its been proven that extra road capacity is always taken up and only releives the problem for a short period. In the process we set a president for removing public open space and create a bigger, more unpleasant barrier to the park. Likewise apart from token forward stopping bays the scheme doesn't appear to be taking advantage of this opportunity to improve the lot cyclists on this dangerous junction.
Anyway realise these concerns have been raised before but was just shocked that there appears to be a desire to push through a scheme which is fundementally the same as one roundly rejected by the public and council so recently. Its made all the more laughable that the promotion material claims that the Boards favoured option - the one removing the most of the park and creating the biggest increase in road capacity has the overwhelming backing of Herne Hill residents - have they consulted them since they and their Councillors rejected the principle of losing a wedge of the park within the last couple of months?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 29, 2008)

For anyone who is against this development I just received this from the FoBP:

"Please come tomorrow
Lambeth is receiving a delegation from the Friends of Brockwell Park about the proposed road at the meeting of the full Council tomorrow (Wednesday 30th January). Sorry for the short notice, but we were only told yesterday.
Please come along to Lambeth Town Hall to support the delegation: come at around 6:45 and ask for the Public Gallery. We'll try to arrange for a FoBP representative to be at the main entrance, please make yourself known to them. The delegation should have been heard before 7:30 so you'll be able to get away then. Forward this email to everyone you know who loves the Park so they know what's happening. 
4,000 objections received
Lambeth has now received more than 4,000 objections to the proposed road across Brockwell Park. If you haven't already sent in an individual objection please do so today - as they are taken much more seriously by the Council. The official deadline for objections was in November, but the Council will continue to receive objections up to the date of the Planning Committee - they wanted this meeting in December, but there were so many objections they had to put it off. 

It is vital that Lambeth Councillors know how we feel about the scheme so 
Contact Lambeth Councillors to say you object to the scheme.

If you want to do more - handing out leaflets at the Railway or Underground stations, getting signatures door to door, or anything else you can think of, contact the Chair of the Friends of Brockwell Park: laura.morland@brockwellpark.com "

(The message also contained links to make your own objections as well as a facility to enter your postcode and see your Councillors' contact details and how they voted on the road plan - these links are also to be found on the FoBP website: http://www.brockwellpark.com/)


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 29, 2008)

This is fucking ridiculous. I've seen the paint markers in the park, and it's getting rid of concrete, tar and about 3 sqm of grass.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> This is fucking ridiculous. I've seen the paint markers in the park, and it's getting rid of concrete, tar and about 3 sqm of grass.



to replace it with concrete, tar, about 3 sqm of grass and lots of cars!!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 29, 2008)

There are already lots of cars.


----------



## hendo (Jan 29, 2008)

I've seen the markers too (although the council went through a phase of getting rid of them, only for them to reappear). I drive my car round there sometimes, and it is rubbish, but this proposal takes up so little of the park I can't see how it will improve life for drivers.

I'd rather they leave things alone. To tug up park for road seems to fly in the face of current sentiment about our environmental responsibilities.

As for the owners of the houses on Rymer Road, they saw the traffic when they bought them - as did we when we decided against buying there. House values shouldn't be a factor in this debate.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> There are already lots of cars.



not on the bit that's currently inside the park but will no longer be if this goes ahead - that has lots of runners, cyclists and pedestrians!


----------



## Crispy (Jan 29, 2008)

And this new junction is designed to get those cars through more smoothly = less pollution from idling cars.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 29, 2008)

Well I've said it before - but no one seems willing to consider the possibility - I'm pretty sure there will be a way of achieving that which does not involve chopping off bits of park.  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!!


----------



## hendo (Jan 29, 2008)

I'm on gaijingirls side. I'm a driver and a jogger, and I say, keep the park.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 29, 2008)

TBH I'm not *that* fussed one way or another, but the whole FoBP campaign, and indeed this thread, is a good example of how to effectively use language to intensify something. For example, the use of 1000sqm - that sounds like a lot, but is less then 0.05% of the park's total area - which isn't quite so impressive, especially when you consider that its mainly non-grass that's being torn up! The same thing goes for use of the word 'Threat' in the thread title - it's not exactly true that the whole park is under threat is it, but that's the implication of the thread title, and much of the literature that FoBP have circulated.

Not having a go, just intrigued to see 'good guy' spin...


----------



## Slow Hands (Jan 29, 2008)

gaijingirl said:


> ... No - find an alternative solution!!


TUNNELS!


----------



## Bob (Jan 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> TBH I'm not *that* fussed one way or another, but the whole FoBP campaign, and indeed this thread, is a good example of how to effectively use language to intensify something. For example, the use of 1000sqm - that sounds like a lot, but is less then 0.05% of the park's total area - which isn't quite so impressive, especially when you consider that its mainly non-grass that's being torn up! The same thing goes for use of the word 'Threat' in the thread title - it's not exactly true that the whole park is under threat is it, but that's the implication of the thread title, and much of the literature that FoBP have circulated.
> 
> Not having a go, just intrigued to see 'good guy' spin...



To be fair to them they've made an effort on their website to show the extent of the land taken (have a look here: http://www.brockwellpark.com/herne_hill_junction.htm)

Basically my objections are:

a) You can tidy up the junction without taking a bit off the park - and get most of the advantages - this plan uses the footprint of 16 buses - which seems quite a lot to do some tidying
b) This is a classic Lambeth plan (as with Rushcroft Square) that will cost millions and look good on the plans but on their track record not work
c) We lose the public toilets - they may not be open but at least there's a possibility of getting them back
d) We lose (I think) the mini railway
e) We lose the rather sweet gates to the park
f) In classic Lambeth fashion they announced a consultation in only one place - over a couple of weeks - kind of reeks of wanting to slip the thing through.
g) The tarmac was going to be made into flower beds and the toilet block improved with lottery money

Strangely the politics of this has been very good mannered for Lambeth - Lib Dems & Conservatives against, Labour in favour - but all in a very moderate way.


----------



## Bob (Jan 29, 2008)

PS Some historic irony. Back in the 1970s Labour wanted to put a motorway through Brockwell Park. Opposed by Ken Livingstone.

Not sure where he stands on this scheme today.


----------



## Winot (Jan 29, 2008)

Bob said:


> PS Some historic irony. Back in the 1970s Labour wanted to put a motorway through Brockwell Park.



Presumably with the cafe on the hill as the service station?


----------



## T & P (Jan 30, 2008)

hendo said:


> I'm on gaijingirls side. I'm a driver and a jogger, and I say, keep the park.


 Without bothering to get a calculator to work it out properly, I'd hazard a guess that about 99.95% of the surface of the park _is _being left untouched.

_If _the proposals are carried out wisely and the changes were to improve the traffic around that corner to any significant degree, then everybody would benefit greatly, not just drivers. Provided better crossing is incorporated into the redesign, park users would actually benefit more than most. Reaching the park gates from the other side of the road is currently not a pleasant or very safe experience.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 30, 2008)

I heard a suggestion that the layout of the new bus lane - which appears to dictate the new park boundary -has to allow for the remote possibility of bendy buses ever being scheduled to run on the Norwood Road/Dulwich Road routes.

Any TfL lurkers/bus spotters know better


----------



## Termite Man (Jan 30, 2008)

T & P said:


> Reaching the park gates from the other side of the road is currently not a pleasant or very safe experience.



I really don't understand this mantra that that junction is "unsafe" , I regularly walk and cycle through this junction and as long as your sensible then it's a perfectly safe crossing to make 

From what I've been able to work out from the plans and the painted marks in the park the bit of park that will be lost is going to be used for the cycle lane which I think is unecessary , and the little pedstrianised island which again won't provide any real tangible benefit to road users or park users .


----------



## Winot (Jan 30, 2008)

Termite Man said:


> I really don't understand this mantra that that junction is "unsafe" , I regularly walk and cycle through this junction and as long as your sensible then it's a perfectly safe crossing to make



It's very difficult to cross with a pushchair and/or children in tow.  There is no safe route (by which I mean there is always the possibility of traffic coming from somewhere).  Also, the traffic tends to snarl up on the Bandidos side going up Norwood Road leaving no gap to get a pushchair through.


----------



## mccliche (Jan 30, 2008)

is the an email addy to register objections


----------



## Crispy (Jan 30, 2008)

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


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 30, 2008)

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 (Jan 31, 2008)

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 (Jan 31, 2008)

billythefish said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2008)

billythefish said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2008)

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 (Jan 31, 2008)

cllr said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 31, 2008)

billythefish said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2008)

gaijingirl said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

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


----------



## corporate whore (Feb 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

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


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 1, 2008)

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 (Feb 1, 2008)

corporate whore said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

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 (Feb 1, 2008)

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 (Apr 23, 2008)

*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 two links are:

link1

speech


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 16, 2008)

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 (Jul 17, 2008)

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 (Jul 17, 2008)

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 (Jul 17, 2008)

> plans to partially destroy it with a new road



Yet more hyperbole from FoBP...


----------



## christonabike (Jul 17, 2008)

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 (Jul 17, 2008)

Xeno said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Mar 29, 2009)

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 (Mar 29, 2009)

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


----------



## ChrisSouth (Mar 30, 2009)

gaijingirl said:


> 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 (Mar 30, 2009)

ChrisSouth said:


> 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 (Mar 30, 2009)

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


----------



## Crispy (Mar 30, 2009)

I really don't see the issue. It's a tiny strip of park which is not used, and the junction needs fixing.


----------



## pboi (Mar 30, 2009)

exactly my thoughts


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 31, 2009)

Here's what John Brunton from the HH Society had to say about the plans when I spoke to him.

Personally - I'd be sorry to lose a plot of green land in favour of tarmac, but it really is a tiny percentage of a rather large, beautiful park.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 31, 2009)

> only the people who live right up near the station on Railton road & Rhymer / Hurst streets are in favour of this.



Another way of saying this would be 'Those most directly affected by it'

As I've said several times on this thread, the FOBP and others have used hyperbole and spin constantly in their campaign against a development which will take less than 1% of the actual green space from the park, and make a better, safer interchange for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 31, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> a development which will take less than 1% of the actual green space from the park



The park is 128.5 acres or 520,000 sq.m.
1100 sq.m. (the area FOBP state will be removed) is 0.21%


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 31, 2009)

The other thing as well is that '1100' is a big number - that's like 1000m!!!

What people don't appreciate is that 10mx110m isn't that big a space...in fact, it's basically the space taken by the sprint section on a running track.


----------



## g force (Mar 31, 2009)

Thus making their argument even more risible.


----------



## goldengraham (Mar 31, 2009)

Bob said:


> 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.



Actually loads of people in Herne Hill are in favour of it - perhaps they are just not quite as motivated to sign petitions etc, as it has always seemed likely that the scheme would go ahead anyway.

That said, I admire the FOBP for acting on an important principle, but sometimes you just have to let the head rule the heart.

If it was any other junction and any other bit of park I'd probably be dead set against it. But the fact is, it is _that_ (very dangerous) junction and _that_ (very scummy) bit of park.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 31, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The other thing as well is that '1100' is a big number - that's like 1000m!!!
> 
> What people don't appreciate is that 10mx110m isn't that big a space...in fact, it's basically the space taken by the sprint section on a running track.


If the aim is to benefit the area, a car park that size would have a hundred or more spaces.  That would be more useful than gobbling up the space to widen the road.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 31, 2009)

goldengraham said:


> Actually loads of people in Herne Hill are in favour of it - perhaps they are just not quite as motivated to sign petitions etc, as it has always seemed likely that the scheme would go ahead anyway.
> 
> That said, I admire the FOBP for acting on an important principle, but sometimes you just have to let the head rule the heart.
> 
> If it was any other junction and any other bit of park I'd probably be dead set against it. But the fact is, it is _that_ (very dangerous) junction and _that_ (very scummy) bit of park.


The junction could be made a lot safer by the provision of proper pelican crossings.  Far cheaper, too.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 31, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I really don't see the issue. It's a tiny strip of park which is not used, and the junction needs fixing.


No, it's rough grassland at the edge of the park. That grass is kept long and rough for the benefit of the ecology and of wildlife.  Destroy that strip, and a similarly wide rough strip will be needed to replace it. 

All the fixing the junction really needs is to have proper pelican crossings.


----------



## christonabike (Mar 31, 2009)

> The junction could be made a lot safer by the provision of proper pelican crossings. Far cheaper, too.



Aye, I said this a few moons ago

It's not hard it is to cross a road safely with proper crossings provided. I see that there are none there now, was this to make it unsafe and ensure this goes ahead?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 31, 2009)

It's not just the pedestrian crossings that need fixing though. The road junction is a bottleneck - for buses as well as cars. The proposal creates more space for passing traffic and lets buses going from Norwood to Dulwich road bypass the lights entirely.


----------



## christonabike (Mar 31, 2009)

I have no trouble with them sorting stuff out but I feel it is appeasing the car brigade by taking away some of the park. How about massive bus lanes and a ban on cars around that junction
(that'd be mental, I know!)?

Did they really take away the green man crossings there to make it unsafe so the scheme would go ahead? I lose track

[QUOTEBut the fact is, it is that (very dangerous) junction and that (very scummy) bit of park.][/QUOTE]

Both untrue


----------



## goldengraham (Mar 31, 2009)

christonabike said:


> I have no trouble with them sorting stuff out but I feel it is appeasing the car brigade by taking away some of the park. How about massive bus lanes and a ban on cars around that junction
> (that'd be mental, I know!)?




Isn't that pretty much what the scheme proposes to do?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 31, 2009)

It doesn't ban cars. Doing so would be madness, it's a critical junction for all traffic. The railway and the park are massive obstacles and rerouting round them would result in chaos.

It does add some bus lane though


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2009)

Jonti said:


> No, it's rough grassland at the edge of the park. That grass is kept long and rough for the benefit of the ecology and of wildlife.  Destroy that strip, and a similarly wide rough strip will be needed to replace it.



How much of the strip that will be taken out comprises "rough grassland"? Not very much I don't think. Most of it is tarmac anyway.




Jonti said:


> All the fixing the junction really needs is to have proper pelican crossings.



That doesn't really help buses and cyclists though does it?


----------



## Structaural (Mar 31, 2009)

Why can't the 2nd proposal go ahead then, that only uses 50% of that parkland and still allows the development of Herne Hill? It is not a scummy part of the park, it's full of rosebushes, grasses and benches. If you push into the park, then another part of the park will become wino-land anyway. 

I think it's fucking sad when urban green spaces are given up for cars in any situation, and the parkland is going to make a two lane sliproad.


----------



## christonabike (Mar 31, 2009)

> The railway and the park are massive obstacles and rerouting round them would result in chaos



I would have no problem with this scheme if they added to the park somewhere else, by digging up a road and making it part of the park



> I think it's fucking sad when urban green spaces are given up for cars in any situation



This ^^^

In a few years time I expect this as an example of the park being taken away for car flow, and it to be repeated


----------



## Crispy (Mar 31, 2009)

One lane sliproad

The rosebushes and flower beds will have to go in either layout, although the toilet block is retained in the FOBP proposal. Both schemes will require redesign and replanting of the entrance area, and the amount of parkland taken up is miniscule in both schemes. I'd be happy with either of them.


----------



## Bob (Mar 31, 2009)

Crispy said:


> One lane sliproad
> 
> The rosebushes and flower beds will have to go in either layout, although the toilet block is retained in the FOBP proposal. Both schemes will require redesign and replanting of the entrance area, and the amount of parkland taken up is miniscule in both schemes. I'd be happy with either of them.



What seems particularly pig headed to me is that FOBP have come up with a fallback design that meets the objectives (and so keeps everyone happy) and that Lambeth have 'reviewed' it using the people who came up with the original plan. So unsurprisingly Lambeth have decided not to budge.


----------



## Bob (Mar 31, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Another way of saying this would be 'Those most directly affected by it'



Well actually everyone who lives locally crosses at that junction regularly - including me. So we all have an interest in getting it sorted out.

It's more that the people in Rhymer / Hurst streets like the idea of losing traffic going past their front doors - which will ultimately go past somebody else's front door now...


----------



## Structaural (Mar 31, 2009)

Crispy said:


> One lane sliproad
> 
> The rosebushes and flower beds will have to go in either layout, although the toilet block is retained in the FOBP proposal. Both schemes will require redesign and replanting of the entrance area, and the amount of parkland taken up is miniscule in both schemes. I'd be happy with either of them.



There's already a one-lane slip road, it must become two lane, surely, to allow the traffic going south from Dulwich road (as they are blocking off Railton).

I look forward to the redevelopment of Herne Hill, but as the original Lambeth plan didn't allow for this and was purely road widening/park stealing I think they've found this way round it as evidenced by ignoring the updated plan. This is more for traffic improvement to the South Circular (and gentrification) than anything else. Call me a cynic with regards to Lambeth Council.

It may be miniscule compared with the total size of the park, but who counts percentages anyway? I think losing it will quite noticeable, especially to those who've used that entrance for the past 30 years.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 31, 2009)

Traffic going south down Dulwich, headed for Norwood road just takes the RH lane when approaching the lights, then turns right. The proposal clearly shows a single lane slip road if you look at the drawing.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 1, 2009)

> and gentrification



Gentrifying Herne Hill? Cos it's so run down now.

Incidentally, the A205 is nowhere near Brockwell Park, so I don't quite know how improving the junction at BP will alter traffic flow at the crossroads at Tulse Hill...


----------



## Jonti (Apr 1, 2009)

teuchter said:


> How much of the strip that will be taken out comprises "rough grassland"? Not very much I don't think. *Most of it is tarmac anyway*.


Dishonest bullshit emphasised.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 1, 2009)

Xeno said:


> ...
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


My guess: because  nuLabour voting home-owners are happy to destroy parkland if it helps them pocket a hefty profit by improving house-prices in the area.  

Hence, I suppose, the downright misinformation posted here


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2009)

I just measured areas off the proposed plan using autocad.

The breakdown of Park Area Removed is:

33% Mown grass
32% Tarmac
19% Scrub/bushes/small trees
7.7% Raised beds
4.8% Toilet block grounds
3.5% Toilet block


----------



## teuchter (Apr 1, 2009)

Here is the proposed plan:










And here it is as is:


----------



## Jonti (Apr 1, 2009)

So that's pretty much 60% of the land is "green", and about 30%  public paths in the traffic free environment of the Park.  The remaining 10% is for public convenience.

All this is to be destroyed for the benefit of through traffic.

Of course, the paved areas inside the park just inside the exit gate will need to be relaid when the exit gate is moved a staggering 10m or so inside the present park boundary. 

It is dishonest of the promoters of the "parkland for slip roads" policy not to count this further paving as parkland destroyed by their scheme.  It is dishonest to claim that "most" of the area to be lost is already tarmac.  And it is dishonest, and manipulative, to have failed to introduce simple pelican crossings to make the junction safer for foot traffic.

This is not about people, local facilities and local trade.  It is about speeding the flow of through traffic through the wider and faster slip road (which will therefore be _more_ hazardous to foot traffic entering and leaving the park).  Great, we lose the public conveniences , and parkland. We gain a junction with faster moving traffic and poorer pedestrian facilities.

And the traffic that has slipped round the corner more smoothly will get to the next bottleneck at the junction of Brixton Water Lane and Effra Road/Tulse Hill, oooh, maybe three or five minutes more quickly.  Where it will, of course, be delayed for longer (being as more will be queued up there).

The usual great sense of priorities from the motoring lobby, then


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2009)

It just seems to me that the protestations are completely out of proportion to the actual damage being done. If they were going to drive a 4 lane highway through the park, I'd be frothing with rage and getting ready to lie down in front of the bulldozers. But this proposal removes 0.2% of the park, at a place where the park is not actually used for anything. Users of the park will not suffer in the slightest. A visit to Brockwell Park will be _exactly_ the same before and after. As the FOBP put it, it may be possible to avoid demolishing the toilet block. Not a bad idea.

Note that a pelican crossing, of the maximum allowed width of 10m is allowed for in the latest plan. Read the FOBP's traffic consultant's report for details.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 1, 2009)

^ Looking at those two images, the proposed layout seems more attractive, to me as a pedestrian.

It doesn't seem like the amount of road surface has increased. The slip road has moved inwards to the park somewhat (and appears to be narrower than the existing one). This effectively means that the triangular island has increased in size, and has trees planted within it. The bit of Railton Road in front of the station is pedestrianised, so also seems more attractive to me as a pedestrian.

I do not own a car and I do not live in Herne Hill so have nothing to gain from property values rising or anything like that.

I sympathise entirely with the principle of not allowing bits of public green space to be slowly eaten up by road space. But I don't see that this is the case here. In my opinion the public space that is the junction area just outside the park will be significantly improved and therefore the loss of a very small area of useable park space is, in this case, justifiable.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 1, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Gentrifying Herne Hill? Cos it's so run down now.
> 
> Incidentally, the A205 is nowhere near Brockwell Park, so I don't quite know how improving the junction at BP will alter traffic flow at the crossroads at Tulse Hill...



Yes, so that the homeowning partakers of Pullen's can revel in their £3.50 bottles of beer without buses roaring past.  

Most people take Croxted to get onto the South Circular, and a lot of the traffic coming through Herne Hill is destined for that road. As Jonti well says above, the traffic improvements will do little for overall traffic. Let's face it London turns to a virtual standstill during rush hours.

I hadn't looked at the plan for some time Crispy. So traffic will have to turn right now? That might slow things down just as much as it is now, in fact maybe worse with the buses and the single lane for straight on. But then Herne Hill has a convergence of 6 roads at the moment, it's always going to be difficult. They could almost lose the invasive slip-road, let traffic turn left at the lights, most traffic backs up Norwood road anyway, an earlier slip-road isn't going to make that much difference. And the extra wait for the lights to allow traffic to turn right from Dulwich road could allow the left turn traffic an extra light run.
I reckon they could just improve the pelican crossings. The main change and loss of 1000sqft of the park just seems to be an earlier slip-road which is debatable whether it improves things as traffic pretty back backs up to Crystal Palace. The idea that traffic flow can be improved in London with increasing cars every year is ridiculous. They should do like Holland, you want to drive, you get penalised in every which way.

Anyway it's going to happen, arguing about it on here will change nothing. Good post Jonti.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2009)

1000 sq.*m*. That's 10,764 sq.ft!

The road improvement is not just the slip road. the wider junction allows for wider approaches, so for instance, two lanes go past the bus stops on the East side of Dulwhich road instad of one. This should allow buses more space to pick up and put down and reduce congestion.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 1, 2009)

> Most people take Croxted to get onto the South Circular



Got some traffic flow stats to back that up? Cos you can only turn left onto the A205 at the junction at Thurlow Park road, and Turney Lane takes you into the village, which is even more hassle. IME of riding down that road, most of the traffic continues up Croxted road to Crystal Palace Parade.

Also, is everything in the plan above around the station a pedestrian zone?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 1, 2009)

The thing is, lots of internet people can write posts about how the slipway should be moved this way or that and there should be an extra lane here and traffic backs up here but not there and if we change this to that the traffic will back up there instead.

But traffic modelling and road junction design are complicated and specialised things so my inclination is to go with what TfL - who employ people who know what they're talking about when it comes to these things - say is best.

I am as wary as anyone about the road lobby and would gladly see private cars banned from London altogether. But my impression is that TfL are not a pro-motorist organisation - they generally prioritise the needs of public transport and pedestrians if anything. As evidenced what has recently been done in Brixton High Street.

An independent traffic consultant was apparently employed to look at the alternative proposals put forward by FOBP, and the conclusion was that the TfL/Lambeth proposal was safer for pedestrians.

TfL say that the proposed scheme will improve bus flow and make things better for cyclists and pedestrians. I am happy to believe them until someone else, who knows what they are talking about, presents an alternative scheme.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 1, 2009)

Crispy said:


> The road improvement is not just the slip road. the wider junction allows for wider approaches, so for instance, two lanes go past the bus stops on the East side of Dulwhich road instad of one. This should allow buses more space to pick up and put down and reduce congestion.



A whole extra bus lane going southbound if I understand correctly.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 1, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Got some traffic flow stats to back that up? Cos you can only turn left onto the A205 at the junction at Thurlow Park road, and Turney Lane takes you into the village, which is even more hassle. IME of riding down that road, most of the traffic continues up Croxted road to Crystal Palace Parade.
> 
> Also, is everything in the plan above around the station a pedestrian zone?



'course not , well lets just say a certain percentage of drivers go that way as it's a bit quicker. Anyone I know does anyway.

Yes, it's all being pedestrianised around the station, be quite nice in the end.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 1, 2009)

Crispy said:


> 1000 sq.*m*. That's 10,764 sq.ft!
> 
> The road improvement is not just the slip road. the wider junction allows for wider approaches, so for instance, two lanes go past the bus stops on the East side of Dulwhich road instad of one. This should allow buses more space to pick up and put down and reduce congestion.



Damn! that's a lot of feets

If you're taling about the north side of Dulwich road it's already wide enough, they could just stop cars parking. The south side is two lane already. If you're talking about the east side of Norwood Road then this is should be a slight improvement but not by much as it's going to narrow again and it's already two lane, which is better than most stretches of road in London. And it takes a chunk of green space to do it, which is wrong.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 1, 2009)

I meant norwood


----------



## T & P (Apr 1, 2009)

Structaural said:


> Damn! that's a lot of feets.


 It sounds like a lot, but when you factor in the total area of the park (500,000 sq m. / 5,000,000 sq. ft.) it is not that significant at all. Around 0.25% if my maths are correct.


----------



## goldengraham (Apr 1, 2009)

I don't remember anyone on here kicking up much of a fuss when they took back about 500m2 of parkland to expand the lido into a private gym a couple of years ago.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 2, 2009)

That sounds like yet another lie from the road lobby.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 2, 2009)

*Lies, damned lies and statistics*



T & P said:


> It sounds like a lot, but when you factor in the total area of the park (500,000 sq m. / 5,000,000 sq. ft.) it is not that significant at all. Around 0.25% if my maths are correct.


To be fair, the outright lies ("careless mistakes") made by the road warriors are not the greatest of their intellectual dishonesties.

The percentage game is probably even more cynical and manipulative.  Have you noticed how the road lobby never tells us the percentage increase in road area that will result from their destruction of parkland?  How much will this expensive vandalism extend Lambeth's roads?

Around 0.000025% at most! Clearly such a small percentage is a trifle and not worth bothering with!


----------



## teuchter (Apr 2, 2009)

Jonti said:


> To be fair, the outright lies ("careless mistakes") made by the road warriors are not the greatest of their intellectual dishonesties.
> 
> The percentage game is probably even more cynical and manipulative.  Have you noticed how the road lobby never tells us the percentage increase in road area that will result from their destruction of parkland?  How much will this expensive vandalism extend Lambeth's roads?
> 
> Around 0.000025% at most! Clearly such a small percentage is a trifle and not worth bothering with!



To keep going on about the "road lobby" makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist, especially when several people including me have said they are in favour of the changes because they will make things better from a pedestrian's (and public transport user's) point of view.

Or do you think I for example am a "road warrior" in disguise?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

Seconded. I'd like to see the death of the motor car, but I'm in favour of this scheme.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 2, 2009)

T & P said:


> It sounds like a lot, but when you factor in the total area of the park (500,000 sq m. / 5,000,000 sq. ft.) it is not that significant at all. Around 0.25% if my maths are correct.



Meaningless, really. Unless I'm some sort of giant that can enjoy the park _all at once_, then the percentage of the whole doesn't mean much. I don't use all the park generally when I go there, I usually stick to the east side while walking the dog, so actually around 15% of my park will disappear. I will notice 10,000 sq ft going missing from a place that once had a whole 10,000 sq ft of park. 
If I demolish your house, it's only 0.00000018% of London so who would care?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 2, 2009)

Structaural said:


> Meaningless, really. Unless I'm some sort of giant that can enjoy the park _all at once_, then the percentage of the whole doesn't mean much. I don't use all the park generally when I go there, I usually stick to the east side while walking the dog, so actually around 15% of my park will disappear. I will notice 10,000 sq ft going missing from a place that once had a whole 10,000 sq ft of park.



I agree that percentages aren't particularly useful here. A more meaningful way of describing how the changes will affect you (assuming you enter at the main gate) would be to say you will have to walk an extra fifteen metres or so before you enter the park proper, and then your park experience will be fairly much identical to your current park experience. And your approach to the park, which forms part of your overall dog walking experience, will in my opinion be made significantly more pleasant than it is at the moment.


----------



## Termite Man (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Seconded. I'd like to see the death of the motor car, but I'm in favour of this scheme.




I'm in favour of the scheme I just don't see why they need a bit of the park to make it happen .


----------



## T & P (Apr 2, 2009)

Termite Man said:


> I'm in favour of the scheme I just don't see why they need a bit of the park to make it happen .


 Maybe it is simply not possible to improve the crossing within the existing road space. And while I'm no expert I really cannot see how it could be done without going into the park a bit. A tunnel I guess, but the cost of that makes it implausable.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 2, 2009)

teuchter said:


> To keep going on about the "road lobby" makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist, especially when several people including me have said they are in favour of the changes because they will make things better from a pedestrian's (and public transport user's) point of view.
> 
> Or do you think I for example am a "road warrior" in disguise?


You're lobbying for road construction over parkland; you misrepresent the facts to make your case.

You don't like the description that attaches to that kind of politicking? 

Cry me a river, road warrior!


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

I'm a bus and pedestrian and cyclist warrior. Hear me roar!


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 2, 2009)

Whilst the area affected is small it currently provides an important buffer between the road and well used parts of the park.

It will therefore have a detrimental effect.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 2, 2009)

No it doesn't. It provides a space for the winos to lob their empties.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 2, 2009)

...and so another space will have to be made.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 2, 2009)

Jonti said:


> You're lobbying for road construction over parkland; you misrepresent the facts to make your case.
> 
> You don't like the description that attaches to that kind of politicking?
> 
> Cry me a river, road warrior!



Misrepresent the facts? I said I thought it was half tarmac, the area to be lost, which was my subjective impression from walking through there and seeing the line that was painted on the ground a while back. Crispy's figures showed that in fact it's about a third tarmac. I apologise if my guess was a little out.

If we want to be picky I could find the bit where you said the new slip road would be "wider" than the existing one when in fact, from the information to hand, it will actually be narrower. It will also be raised to pavement level which is a well practised strategy for slowing down traffic. 

I think the problem here is that people are descending into a fit of rage because they can't see past the fact that x square metres of the park will be "lost". That's such a stupidly simplistic way to look at what is a reorganisation of the whole layout of that bit of Herne Hill.

I am interested in the quality of public space, not quibbles over square metres. If you look at the image below, I have coloured in red the areas that are currently public space accessible to pedestrians but which will become roadway, and I have coloured in green the areas which are currently roadway but which will become public space accessible to pedestrians. If you subtract the amount of green from the amount of red, there really isn't such a huge area that has been lost, is there?

In return for that very small area being "lost", we get extra space for bus stops and a vastly superior approach to the park. At the moment, starting from the corner with the road to the station, you have to firstly cross several lanes of traffic with just a small pedestrian island in the middle. You then have to cross the existing slip road, which always feels a bit dicey because it is sharply curved and you can't see very far along it to see if cars are coming (and vice versa; they can't see you). Once you have negotiated that slip-road, you are then squashed onto an unsuitably narrow pavement, in between road barriers and the park gates.

In the proposed scheme, the same journey involves crossing three lanes of one-way traffic to a generous pedestrian island that unlike the existing ones has space for more than about four people. Then, across another couple of lanes of one-way traffic onto a large paved area with trees (having looked at aerial shots it looks like these are retained trees currently in the winos' corner). Then across the new sliproad which as previously mentioned is level with the pavements and has clear sightlines meaning cars can see pedestrians and vice versa. And then you are into the park.

This is not even mentioning the associated improvements that will see the whole of the station approach road pedestrianised.

So for me it's not a difficult decision. Either be dogmatic and simplistic about never in any circumstances losing a bit of parkland, or look rationally at the benefits gained in return - look at square metres of public space rather than park space, and look at quality rather than quantity. I choose the rational and sensible approach.

Which apparently makes me a "road warrior".


----------



## T & P (May 31, 2009)

I notice the corner of the park bordering the junction in question has been boarded up. Does this mean this is going ahead? And if not, what are they doing there that requires erecting plywood boards alongside the fence?


----------



## tommers (Apr 23, 2010)

well.... this is now finished....  what do people think?

I notice that railton road by herne hill station is now closed to traffic and the one way system on the 2 roads leading into it has been changed round too.  Is it going to be a no through road?  Will they pedestrianise that bit?  The junction has changed too, in that you can turn right up norwood road now from dulwich road.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 23, 2010)

I think it makes the entrance to the park much more welcoming. I haven't actually experienced it all as a ped yet, but hopefully soon


----------



## Biddlybee (Apr 23, 2010)

tommers said:


> well.... this is now finished....  what do people think?
> 
> I notice that railton road by herne hill station is now closed to traffic and the one way system on the 2 roads leading into it has been changed round too.  Is it going to be a no through road?  Will they pedestrianise that bit?  The junction has changed too, in that you can turn right up norwood road now from dulwich road.


Blimey, that must've changed in the last week... I might pop up there tonight.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 23, 2010)

That junction and road crossing was a nightmare, I hope it's been improved.


----------



## tommers (Apr 23, 2010)

I cycle through it and it suits me.  The connection between norwood road and dulwich road goes up onto raised pavementy bits with a big crossing in the middle and there's a give way line at the end, so no more waiting at the lights at the main junction, and, as Crispy says, it seems to have improved the park entrance.

If they do pedestrianise railton road by the station then I can only see that being good.  That little road was a nightmare sometimes.

A bit of park has gone though, of course.


----------



## Woody (Apr 23, 2010)

*Bus lane that isn't*

The new road markings seem to direct all traffic onto the slip road towards Brixton that I'd assumed was just for buses and cycles. I wouldn't fance trying to cross if that's the case.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 23, 2010)

It's just the bus lane surely?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 23, 2010)

tommers said:


> I notice that railton road by herne hill station is now closed to traffic and the one way system on the 2 roads leading into it has been changed round too.  Is it going to be a no through road?  Will they pedestrianise that bit?



Yes the intention is to pedestrianise that bit as far as I know.

Have they put the second tree into the new bit of paving by the entrance to the park yet? The last couple of times I've gone by, it's been missing but there is a kind of X marks the spot marked onto the paving.


----------



## tommers (Apr 23, 2010)

Woody said:


> The new road markings seem to direct all traffic onto the slip road towards Brixton that I'd assumed was just for buses and cycles. I wouldn't fance trying to cross if that's the case.



yeah.  it's for all traffic.  People don't seem to be using it much, from what i see.  I don't know if you are really still able to do a left at the lights?

The crossing is reaaalllllyyy wide, which I suppose will help and you go up onto a different level which will make drivers slow down...

but yeah, be interesting to see if it works.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 24, 2010)

Anyone got any pics?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2010)

It would make far more sense if it were a filter lane because, apart from safer crossing, pretty much the whole issue is the bottle neck coming from Tulse Hill. And there still seems to be something of the park remaining


----------



## T & P (Apr 24, 2010)

tommers said:


> yeah.  it's for all traffic.  People don't seem to be using it much, from what i see.  I don't know if you are really still able to do a left at the lights?


 No, I'm pretty sure that will no longer be allowed. 

I don't know if it is going to ease up the chronic congestion, but I think it's a lot better than it was before, and like others have suggested, the whole 'xxx square metres of park have been lost' argument is a misleading one. In percentage of total park area, the chunk lost cannot be more than 0.1% or something ludicrously small like that. If a safer environment and access to the park is to be gained from it (and IMO, it has) then fuck the 0.1% of grass lost to the scheme.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 24, 2010)

Awful lot of paving stone, not a lot of traffic flow.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 24, 2010)

I honestly think it's shit.  Loads of concrete and still masses of congestion.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Apr 24, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> I honestly think it's shit.  Loads of concrete and still masses of congestion.



There will always be congestion. The more road they bulid, the more cars will use it.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 24, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> There will always be congestion. The more road they bulid, the more cars will use it.



I agree..


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Apr 24, 2010)

Totally fucked it up, by extending the pavement out locally at the bus stop further down the road its now impossible to overtake stationary buses, traffic backs up for miles.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 24, 2010)

What concrete? It's all stone.



Gixxer1000 said:


> Totally fucked it up, by extending the pavement out locally at the bus stop further down the road its now impossible to overtake stationary buses, traffic backs up for miles.



been like that for ages hasn't it?


----------



## corporate whore (Apr 26, 2010)

It looks fine, and it's not finished yet. Once the gates get put back and all the work's tidied it'll be fine. 

Let's face it, the only way that junction's going to be perfect is to stop people driving through Herne Hill.

The park's still there and getting to it is easier = improvement in my book.

Think the top of Railton's gonna be buses only, btw


----------



## T.H.R (Apr 27, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> There will always be congestion. The more road they bulid, the more cars will use it.



Yeah - I haven't really noticed any difference, I'm still stuck on Norwood Road for blimmin ages when I go that way.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2010)

It was always about improving it for pedestrians anyway


----------



## co-op (Apr 27, 2010)

Crispy said:


> It was always about improving it for pedestrians anyway



I think you're wrong there; the funding for this scheme came from TfL who agreed to put the money in mainly on the basis that it would improve bus flow through the junction. Specifically this was the reason for the hugely controversial cut through of the corner of the park - this will allow buses coming off Norwood Rd to get through onto Dulwich Rd without getting snagged up in the junction.

Any benefits to pedestrians are secondary (although it would have been pretty bloody hard to make the junction any less pedestrian-friendly than it was).

The reality of the scheme is probably too early to read but I guess the bus-slip lane will improve journey times as envisioned but it looks to me like that will just about be cancelled out by slower journeys through the junction going the opposite direction since the buses won't be going through Railton Rd any more but joining the traffic jam on Dulwich Rd. We shall see.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2010)

hmm, looks like I was wrong - and indeed we will have to wait to see improvements to buses.

as for why general traffic has been seen in the slip road, is the bus lane rush hour only?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 27, 2010)

I've been past there a few times on buses in the last few days and it's made a huge difference.


----------



## prunus (Apr 27, 2010)

Crispy said:


> hmm, looks like I was wrong - and indeed we will have to wait to see improvements to buses.
> 
> as for why general traffic has been seen in the slip road, is the bus lane rush hour only?



I think the slip road is all traffic, that's certainly what the signs/markings looked like to me as I went past yesterday.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 27, 2010)

tbf, TfL are rarely wrong in their analysis of traffic flows. They would have monitored this for months and probably  longer.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 27, 2010)

I guess they can't because of the station, but it would have been great if they pedestrianised the road outside.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2010)

it would make a nice little square wouldn't it?

the roads are just a bit too wrong and the viaduct is just a bit too narrow for the whole space to properly work - it's a shame.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 27, 2010)

The railway viaduct?.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2010)

yeah. there isn't enough space to get the roads _and_ decent pavements through


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 27, 2010)

I'm talking about the very end of railton road, where it bends around towards the station


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2010)

yeah I know, I was being a bit broader


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Apr 27, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, TfL are rarely wrong in their analysis of traffic flows. They would have monitored this for months and probably  longer.



LMAO has more to do with their social engineering rather than fluid mechanics.


----------



## corporate whore (Apr 28, 2010)

co-op said:


> since the buses won't be going through Railton Rd any more but joining the traffic jam on Dulwich Rd. We shall see.


 
Thought the top of Railton is going to be buses only past the taxi place, where there's a mini roundabout - presumably for the taxis - and then what looks like a single direction lane heading south.


Surely a transport imporvement project wouldn't involve moving a bus stop from outside the station? Would it?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 28, 2010)

All of the bicycle racks outside of the station have also been removed. I hope this is only temporary


----------



## prunus (Apr 28, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> All of the bicycle racks outside of the station have also been removed. I hope this is only temporary



Yes, don't worry; there're yellow and white blobs indicating where they will be put back.


----------



## co-op (Apr 28, 2010)

I have to say (and speaking as a cyclist) - I really prefer the space outside the station without the bike racks.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 28, 2010)

I'm visiting my mum this weekend, I'll be able to take a look *prepares to be appalled*.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 3, 2010)

I counted ten vehicles ignoring ten pedestrians at the new elongated zebra crossing on Saturday. It's early days, but the junction doesn't seem to be very friendly.

I had a chat with Robert Holding from the Herne Hill Society. He was very helpful, and open to ideas to improve the scheme. I really want it to work, given the sacrifice of the parkland.


----------



## pboi (May 3, 2010)

all that crying for nothing!


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> I counted ten vehicles ignoring ten pedestrians at the new elongated zebra crossing on Saturday. It's early days, but the junction doesn't seem to be very friendly.
> 
> I had a chat with Robert Holding from the Herne Hill Society. He was very helpful, and open to ideas to improve the scheme. I really want it to work, given the sacrifice of the parkland.



That was a good little interview, that.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 3, 2010)

teuchter said:


> That was a good little interview, that.



Ah cheers 

It was much more 'robust' offline. I cornered the poor chap for almost an hour! His dedication to Herne Hill was amazing, despite our disagreement.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 6, 2010)

Can anyone remember when they started work on this? It's currently unfinished and in a mess.  Is it the height of bad project planning or are the contractors just very lazy.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

> given the sacrifice of the parkland.



Enough with the hyperbole already!


----------



## tarannau (Jul 6, 2010)

That's not hyperbole - that's entirely accurate!

Now if he had said sacrifice of the finest and most fertile patch of parkland in the universe then you may have a point. 


It was a dodgy principle and decision in the first place. Add to that it looks like a dogs dinner, lamely limping towards progress, and I'm not sure it's been a glorious chapter for all concerned.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

I object to the use of the word 'sacrifice' - adds a level of sacred to the whole comment which is wholly unecessary IMO.

I would like to know why the gates still aren't finished yet tho, but other than that I really like the gate, and the pedding over of the road outside the station.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 6, 2010)

It's a perfectly acceptable synonym though - not hyperbolic really. You'd say you sacrifice some weight for comfort when it comes to a tent for example?

They did sacrifice a bit of the park in favour of improving access, like it or not. I'm just not convinced that they have made a difference that'll last and boy does it look like an ugly white elephant.

It's like a mini Brixton central square, only marooned in traffic. Maybe they'll improve the thing, but poor show so far


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 6, 2010)

The deadline now appears to have shifted to "anytime before the Country Show." I cycled through earlier today, and the scene was a mad scramble to get the new gates put up. The Country Show will be the first major test of the junction. There has already been one serious accident at the crossing.

Still looks as bleak as ever


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 6, 2010)

Yes - not only does it look shit, it's no pleasure crossing there with (some) cars using that slip road as some kind of racing track (you know the slip road that was supposed to be buses only).

As one of the "mums with prams" often invoked in the "won't someone think of the mums with prams" argument - I find it no better for crossing.  My mother point blank refuses to cross there and walks down Dulwich Road to the ped crossing...

I do like the pedestranisation of the end of Railton Road though - if anything I wish they'd paved even more of it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 6, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> I find it no better for crossing.



I don't know how this could be. I find it much easier.

Its not perfect, but it didn't destroy a great swathe of the park as feared.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 6, 2010)

The removal of park land was always a red herring. What is left in place is a junction that appears to not be easing the traffic congestion. The problem for pedestrians (and cyclists) is that the zebra crossing is just so narrow. Cars don't seem to recognise that this is a pedestrian right of way. Some cars simply speed through, leaving pedestrians stranded.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 7, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> I don't know how this could be. I find it much easier.
> 
> Its not perfect, but it didn't destroy a great swathe of the park as feared.



Mainly because of the other stuff I said in my post about the slip road.  Having the ped lights is obviously good - it's still a hairy old junction though and _personally_ I don't feel worth the loss of parkland.  I wish they had deigned to take a look at the alternative suggestions put forward by FoBP.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

"Pauses for a moment to recognise the fallen parkland*


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2010)

Yes, all 10x100m of it. So much gone.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 7, 2010)

How much do you reckon that amount of land is worth in that area - just out of interest?


----------



## Ms T (Jul 7, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> The removal of park land was always a red herring. What is left in place is a junction that appears to not be easing the traffic congestion. The problem for pedestrians (and cyclists) is that the zebra crossing is just so narrow. Cars don't seem to recognise that this is a pedestrian right of way. Some cars simply speed through, leaving pedestrians stranded.




Some drivers will always do this, wherever the crossing.  The one further down Railton, where it become Atlantic Road is a particularl shocker.  It drives me .


----------



## nagapie (Jul 7, 2010)

Slightly off topic but I've heard the one o' clock club might be closed down. I wonder how long it will take Lambeth to sell that bit of park off.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jul 7, 2010)

I really hope that's just a rumour - that one o' clock club is a brilliant facility, and it was only refurbished / rebuilt a few years ago.


----------



## nagapie (Jul 7, 2010)

It was only refurbished a couple of months ago!


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 7, 2010)

nagapie said:


> Slightly off topic but I've heard the one o' clock club might be closed down. I wonder how long it will take Lambeth to sell that bit of park off.



They sold off the "rundown" (by the council itself - conveniently) garages on my bit of estate to a housing association who built a new building (opp 1 o'clock club).  We were promised a % of the proceeds to make improvements to the estate.  We never saw a penny.  

They could really have given that land back to the park to make up for the land lost at HH junction - but of course the land is incredibly valuable.  

I met with so many people during the consultation period - went to meetings in the town hall with the HA - all of whom promised the sun, moon and stars.  

Meanwhile we're still chasing Lambeth for money owed to us after our flat got flooded with sewage because they didn't unblock the communal drains... 

I will incredibly upset if the 1 o'clock club goes - it's one of the main benefits of where I live for me and many of my neighbours right now.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

I agree it looks slightly bleak and maybe a couple more trees would have been nice but will reserve judgement till it's completely finished.

It's already a much more pleasant crossing experience for the pedestrian though.

If drivers are ignoring the zebra crossing then something needs to be done specifically about that. Some speed bumps perhaps, or make it an instant-action traffic lights crossing like the one on the opposite side of the park (across Tulse Hill)?

Even if cars ignore the crossing, at least the improved sightlines mean you can see them coming from quite a way off.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 7, 2010)

It wasn't as bad as I'd imagined, but the cars speed through a bit quick, it's one pathetic zebra. Needs serious garden landscaping, more troughs of flowers and stuff.

I didn't like the way peds have to wait between the two pelicans coming from Norwood road towards the entrance. That fills up quick.
I guess it has to work that way, gonna be murder on Country Show day.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 7, 2010)

Structaural said:


> I didn't like the way peds have to wait between the two pelicans coming from Norwood road towards the entrance. That fills up quick.



and the gap for crossing on the green from the railway side is incredibly short - I actually managed to miss it today and waited 2 cycles..


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2010)

Structaural said:


> I didn't like the way peds have to wait between the two pelicans coming from Norwood road towards the entrance. That fills up quick.



It's loads bigger than the previous one though.

I'm trying to remember how the crossing lights worked previously - was there one set of lights that took you all the way from pavement->island->second island->park entrance or was there a second set that took you across the slip road?


----------



## nagapie (Jul 7, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> I will incredibly upset if the 1 o'clock club goes - it's one of the main benefits of where I live for me and many of my neighbours right now.



A huge loss to the community and some local people's jobs gone with it. I'd be up for chaining myself to the railings.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 7, 2010)

nagapie said:


> A huge loss to the community and some local people's jobs gone with it. I'd be up for chaining myself to the railings.



I think there'd be a lot of people who would want to fight that loss... I do hope that it's just a rumour.....


----------



## Winot (Jul 7, 2010)

teuchter; said:
			
		

> I'm trying to remember how the crossing lights worked previously - was there one set of lights that took you all the way from pavement->island->second island->park entrance or was there a second set that took you across the slip road?



There was no safe pedestrian route across the junction as it was previously configured.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 7, 2010)

nagapie said:


> Slightly off topic but I've heard the one o' clock club might be closed down. I wonder how long it will take Lambeth to sell that bit of park off.



That would be depressing - it was terrific for my son.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 18, 2012)

Aren't they the ones who campaign constantly for fewer public events in the park though?

And were also instrumental in getting the successful Heritage Lottery Fund grant which paid for the new play areas and the chopped off corner? I may be wrong. 

HHF was set up with Lambeth to be a sort of pilot localism thing a few years ago. There's a page about it on the website.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2012)

Alo Licentia! said:


> Weren't they the ones who got the road diverted to go through the park? One of the council's worst recent decisions.


Which road through which park?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

Alo Licentia! said:


> Weren't they the ones who got the road diverted to go through the park? One of the council's worst recent decisions.


Seems to be a logical flaw between the first and second sentences: who was responsible?

They certainly seem to have a consultation role in local policy making, but I can't see they have anything more than that - realistically, with what leverage?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 18, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Which road through which park?


i assume they mean the tiny bit that cut off a corner to ease congestion at the herne hill entrance


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Which road through which park?


The dual carriageway through the middle of Brockwell Park.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i assume they mean the tiny bit that cut off a corner to ease congestion at the herne hill entrance


Ah, that old chestnut. I'd say it's been very successful. Much nicer entrance to the park now.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Apr 18, 2012)

Yes, apart from eating up the drinkers area - they don't seem to have their own out of the way spot any more - the entrance works much better now.


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 18, 2012)

I was always against it and hate it still.  The promise was that cars wouldn't be able to use it - only buses and cycles.  Cars do use it.  Also that it would massively improve the danger of the junction - it hasn't - just more roads to cross now.  As a pedestrian, getting from the park to the costcutter side is still a nightmare, getting from the bookies side to the 2nd hand furniture shop side - also a nightmare.  The lights still function as though the pedestrianised section is not pedestrianised (I guess to let bikes/emergency vehicles through) but as no other stream of traffic can see that happening it often causes confusion.  The two right hand turn lanes coming down Dulwich Road into Norwood Road also often cause trouble as the middle lane can be right hand turn or straight ahead, so cars who want to go straight ahead often get stuck behind cars wanting to turn right.

FWIW I use it as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver and haven't seen any improvement on any front.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

Surely got to be safer, esp. but not only when pretty busy with pedestrians/push chairs, etc.

Take the point about the Costcutters direction though the main pedestrian flows look to be towards  the station and under the bridge.


----------



## Onket (Apr 18, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> I was always against it and hate it still. The promise was that cars wouldn't be able to use it - only buses and cycles. Cars do use it. Also that it would massively improve the danger of the junction - it hasn't - just more roads to cross now. As a pedestrian, getting from the park to the costcutter side is still a nightmare, getting from the bookies side to the 2nd hand furniture shop side - also a nightmare. The lights still function as though the pedestrianised section is not pedestrianised (I guess to let bikes/emergency vehicles through) but as no other stream of traffic can see that happening it often causes confusion. The two right hand turn lanes coming down Dulwich Road into Norwood Road also often cause trouble as the middle lane can be right hand turn or straight ahead, so cars who want to go straight ahead often get stuck behind cars wanting to turn right.
> 
> FWIW I use it as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver and haven't seen any improvement on any front.


 
This^


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 18, 2012)

No one seems to stop their cars when driving through the pelican crossing though, so I'm not sure how that makes it safer... and then pedestrians seem to think that it's a pedestrianised area and don't look for cars...


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Surely got to be safer, esp. but not only when pretty busy with pedestrians/push chairs, etc.


It really doesn't feel any safer to me, either on foot or by bike.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2012)

I think these posts about the corner entrance should be moved to this thread: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/brockwell-park-under-threat-herne-hill-junction.128483/ so that this thread can be about the country show.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

editor said:


> It really doesn't feel any safer to me, either on foot or by bike.


Bu then you're not standing in the middle of Dulwich Road with a buggy, a second child and shopping wondering when to dart across towards the station.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 18, 2012)

It's seems safe enough to me. How is it a nightmare to cross? You just wait for the green man and look both ways before you cross


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Bu then you're not standing in the middle of Dulwich Road with a buggy, a second child and shopping wondering when to dart across towards the station.


Oh, do these people all feel safer then?


----------



## Onket (Apr 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It's seems safe enough to me. How is it a nightmare to cross? You just wait for the green man and look both ways before you cross


 
There aren't lights. It's a zebra crossing.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

Yes. Prev. the middle was very inadequate in terms of waiting space with zero room for child error. Friends with children were occasionally a bit intimidated by the situation.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2012)

I still think these posts about the corner entrance should be moved to this thread: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/brockwell-park-under-threat-herne-hill-junction.128483/ so that this thread can be about the country show.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2012)

*threads merged under relentless pressure from Mr Crispy


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

He should be a moderator that feller.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Apr 18, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> As a pedestrian, getting from the park to the costcutter side is still a nightmare, getting from the bookies side to the 2nd hand furniture shop side - also a nightmare. The lights still function as though the pedestrianised section is not pedestrianised (I guess to let bikes/emergency vehicles through) but as no other stream of traffic can see that happening it often causes confusion.


My understanding is that TfL insisted on keeping the lights for Railton Road as supply lorries (which can't turn around and go back down Railton) would otherwise have to cut into traffic to escape.

I don't understand why the pedestrian crossing between the bookies and furniture shop isn't part of the normal sequence. I can't count the number of times I've seen people standing about on both sides, wondering why the lights skipped the green man (press the button, you turnips!) Since the Railton lights are part of the sequence and traffic from there can't make a left, the lights should always allow pedestrians across when there's a green light on Railton.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Yes. Prev. the middle was very inadequate in terms of waiting space with zero room for child error. Friends with children were occasionally a bit intimidated by the situation.


Darwin.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

Him as well. Though he did use it before the internal combustion engine.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He should be a moderator that feller.


Old habits die hard


----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2012)

Well, I think it's better than the previous arrangement.


----------



## T & P (Apr 18, 2012)

gaijingirl said:


> I was always against it and hate it still. The promise was that cars wouldn't be able to use it - only buses and cycles. Cars do use it. Also that it would massively improve the danger of the junction - it hasn't - just more roads to cross now. As a pedestrian, getting from the park to the costcutter side is still a nightmare, getting from the bookies side to the 2nd hand furniture shop side - also a nightmare. The lights still function as though the pedestrianised section is not pedestrianised (I guess to let bikes/emergency vehicles through) but as no other stream of traffic can see that happening it often causes confusion. The two right hand turn lanes coming down Dulwich Road into Norwood Road also often cause trouble as the middle lane can be right hand turn or straight ahead, so cars who want to go straight ahead often get stuck behind cars wanting to turn right.
> 
> FWIW I use it as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver and haven't seen any improvement on any front.


 I must say my own experience is almost diametrically the opposite. Albeit not a massive difference, traffic congestion has improved. Most noticably if you are turning left onto Dulwich Road. And the only possible way to make crossing the road from the Costcutters than it is with the new layout is if cars were banned altogether. It's a _massive_ improvement in safety for pedestrians.

If that above means the park had to lose approximately 0.025% of its land, so be it.


----------



## Winot (Apr 18, 2012)

It feels much safer to me, but we are out of the pushchair stage (hooray!) so I defer to gaijingirl's experience in that regard.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 18, 2012)

Winot said:


> It feels much safer to me, but we are out of the pushchair stage (hooray!) so I defer to gaijingirl's experience in that regard.



i like the vista it opens up of the park. clever


----------



## Alo Licentia! (Apr 18, 2012)

T & P said:


> If that above means the park had to lose approximately 0.025% of its land, so be it.


 
The park lost 1050 square meters. That's a lot of park. There are many better uses for 1050 square meters of green parkland than to turn it into road.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2012)

Alo Licentia! said:


> The park lost 1050 square meters. That's a lot of park. There are many better uses for 1050 square meters of green parkland than to turn it into road.


 
This has been gone over ad nauseum earlier in the thread.

The bit of park "lost" has not been turned into road. It's been turned into a bit of paved public space outside of the park railings.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 18, 2012)

As per post 205 earlier in the thread:







I have coloured in red the areas that are currently public space accessible to pedestrians but which will become roadway, and I have coloured in green the areas which are currently roadway but which will become public space accessible to pedestrians. If you subtract the amount of green from the amount of red, there really isn't such a huge area that has been lost, is there?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

It's like a face, with a mouth, two eyebrows, a nose, a few warts but no eyes.

The left eyebrow is the new, improved, reassuring crossing island I was mostly talking about.


----------



## Alo Licentia! (Apr 22, 2012)

The junction is closed tonight due to an accident.


----------



## tommers (Apr 23, 2012)

Oh dear. I hope everybody is ok.


----------

