View Full Version : Brockwell Park under threat! - Herne Hill Junction
gaijingirl
16-03-2007, 12:58
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... :confused: Anyway, understandably FoBP are totally opposed to this and this Saturday will be forming a (very civilised I should imagine :D ) 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 (http://www.brockwellpark.com/herne_hill_junction.htm).
Out goes Pissheads Corner as well I guess...
teuchter
16-03-2007, 16:23
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
16-03-2007, 16:38
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
16-03-2007, 16:46
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
16-03-2007, 16:54
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
16-03-2007, 17:31
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.
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
16-03-2007, 23:29
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
17-03-2007, 00:13
Have people really been talking about this for three years without agreement:confused: :(
2003 thread on Herne Hill junction (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1946312)
gaijingirl
17-03-2007, 00:28
Have people really been talking about this for three years without agreement:confused: :(
2003 thread on Herne Hill junction (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1946312)
Does that really surprise you?? :(
quimcunx
17-03-2007, 00:35
iyswim!!
Sorry know this is off-topic but what is iyswim?
gaijingirl
17-03-2007, 00:38
Sorry know this is off-topic but what is iyswim?
If you see what I mean :)
quimcunx
17-03-2007, 00:44
Thank you!
aurora green
17-03-2007, 21:24
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.:D
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.
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?
it's a tough one. Pedestrianising the area in front of the Station is a nice idea though. Opportunity cost i guess
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
18-03-2007, 19:42
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
18-03-2007, 19:58
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
19-03-2007, 10:09
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
19-03-2007, 10:21
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.:D
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.
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
19-03-2007, 10:22
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
19-03-2007, 10:29
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
19-03-2007, 10:31
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
19-03-2007, 10:37
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
19-03-2007, 10:39
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
19-03-2007, 10:49
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
19-03-2007, 10:58
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
19-03-2007, 11:09
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! :confused:
sir.clip
19-03-2007, 11:54
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
19-03-2007, 12:58
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.
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
19-03-2007, 13:30
I think that everyone agrees that the ped crossing situation is dangerous as it is.
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
19-03-2007, 18:49
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.
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!
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
19-03-2007, 20:45
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
19-03-2007, 20:45
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!Word.
guinnessdrinker
19-03-2007, 21:09
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!
han, you should stand for mayor of london. I'll vote for you.
Mrs Magpie
19-03-2007, 21:11
So would I.
Mrs Magpie
19-03-2007, 21:13
I've started campaigning in a small way.....note tagline.....
guinnessdrinker
19-03-2007, 21:23
so have I, tagline....
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
19-03-2007, 21:29
Viral campaign alert!......I think I may start a thread in the London forum.......
guinnessdrinker
19-03-2007, 21:31
Viral campaign alert!......I think I may start a thread in the London forum.......
yeah! go for it!
Mrs Magpie
19-03-2007, 21:32
Done....
DJWrongspeed
19-03-2007, 21:47
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
20-03-2007, 11:20
=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
20-03-2007, 15:24
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 . . . :D
It's a trricky one indeed, I'm sure TfL have a lot to do with this.
aurora green
20-03-2007, 16:57
...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 (http://www.brockwellpark.com/FoBP_letter_070313.pdf))
There's a nice piece in the South London Press on page 3 today.
OpalFruit
20-03-2007, 17:06
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
20-03-2007, 17:22
Actually, according to the bods at the demo on Saturday, even TFL are against this scheme. (more about that here (http://www.brockwellpark.com/FoBP_letter_070313.pdf))
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
29-03-2007, 12:17
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
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
30-03-2007, 13:16
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
04-07-2007, 10:17
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."
A quick thought: Surely moving traffic is less polluting that waiting/blocked traffic?
gaijingirl
04-07-2007, 10:25
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...... :D
kyser_soze
04-07-2007, 13:21
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
04-07-2007, 13:32
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
04-07-2007, 13:35
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
04-07-2007, 13:38
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
11-07-2007, 15:12
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
11-07-2007, 15:45
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.
http://www.extracrispy.co.uk/gallery2/d/2687-1/hernehill.PNG
This is the latest plan, for everyone's information.
dogmatique
11-07-2007, 16:24
What's happening to the grey bits then? Turning into road?
What's happening to the grey bits then? Turning into road?
New pavement
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. :mad:
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.
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.
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
11-07-2007, 16:57
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
11-07-2007, 17:01
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 (http://www.brockwellpark.com/hh_junction_early_plan.htm) are asking for a similar scheme.
http://www.brockwellpark.com/Atkins_option_2B_detail_04_a.jpg
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.
http://www.extracrispy.co.uk/gallery2/d/2690-1/hernehill2.PNG
I might have overdone things a bit there, but why not something like that?
GG: Those are pretty useless cycle lanes though.
EDIT: and that proposal takes away pavement from railton road...
gaijingirl
11-07-2007, 17:30
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
12-07-2007, 12:28
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.
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.
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
13-07-2007, 09:04
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
13-07-2007, 09:10
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!
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.
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
13-07-2007, 09:15
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
13-07-2007, 09:43
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
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.
Not sure how you can make the pavements under the arch much wider - there's only so much space.
gaijingirl
13-07-2007, 10:02
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
13-07-2007, 23:55
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
13-07-2007, 23:58
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.
So the scheme isn't for the benefit of local residents and park users?
That's exactly what I thought! :mad:
guinnessdrinker
14-07-2007, 12:20
(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
14-07-2007, 17:24
So the scheme isn't for the benefit of local residents and park users?
That's exactly what I thought! :mad:
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
14-07-2007, 17:24
So try thinking outside your own envelope.
Is this some kind of cross between thinking outside the box and pushing the envelope? :confused: :D
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
16-07-2007, 10:33
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
16-07-2007, 10:43
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
16-07-2007, 11:37
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
25-07-2007, 16:47
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.
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.
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
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 :(
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
29-01-2008, 18:14
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
29-01-2008, 18:16
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
29-01-2008, 18:18
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
29-01-2008, 18:19
There are already lots of cars.
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
29-01-2008, 18:20
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!
And this new junction is designed to get those cars through more smoothly = less pollution from idling cars.
gaijingirl
29-01-2008, 18:23
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!!
I'm on gaijingirls side. I'm a driver and a jogger, and I say, keep the park.
kyser_soze
29-01-2008, 18:25
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
29-01-2008, 18:26
... No - find an alternative solution!!
TUNNELS!
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.
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. ;)
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?
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
30-01-2008, 09:02
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:confused:
Termite Man
30-01-2008, 09:19
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 :confused:
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 .
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
30-01-2008, 11:31
is the an email addy to register objections
http://www.brockwellpark.com/herne_hill_junction/objection.php
London_Calling
30-01-2008, 11:59
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
31-01-2008, 14:08
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
31-01-2008, 14:35
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?
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
31-01-2008, 14:39
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
31-01-2008, 14:55
So what would happen if you took that area out of the park? Well you'd have to move the entrance back and tarmac over the grass behind the new entrance. So the result? The 1000 square metres of park to be lost would be mostly grassed.
That is before you start looking at
a) the fact that some of the 1000 square metres to be lost would extend beyond the tarmac area
b) the principle that total area designated for parks should not be lost just for traffic schemes, housing or anything else.
I take your point about the tarmac area moving rather than being lost... but I still think the benefits to pedestrians and cyclists is being undersold by many critics of the scheme. It needs more than just pedestrian lights - you're taking your life in your hands cycling from Half Moon Lane to Dulwich Road, or crossing to / from Railton Road.
If bus flows improve (surely something we want in these environmentally concious days?) and access to the park improves, this is a huge benefit to local amenity and the tiny area (in proportion to the rest of the park) lost is a reasonable price to pay?
gaijingirl
31-01-2008, 14:55
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
31-01-2008, 23:19
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
01-02-2008, 11:51
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.
Extra lanes do not relieve congestion, they just fill up with traffic.
corporate whore
01-02-2008, 12:01
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
I will admit to being purposefully flip there :o
Yes, bus lanes are great - more the merrier!
London_Calling
01-02-2008, 12:29
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?
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
01-02-2008, 16:56
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
01-02-2008, 17:17
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
23-04-2008, 08:00
Just been sent this:
Special Council Meeting - Thursday
A number of Councillors have called a Special Meeting of Lambeth Council to discuss the proposed road over Brockwell Park and it takes place this Thursday, 24th April at 7pm in Lambeth Town Hall.
The Friends of Brockwell Park will be sending a delegation to address the Council and we hope you will turn up to support them. We shall be meeting on the Town Hall steps at 6.30pm. The meeting starts at 7pm.
The motion to be discussed is here.
The FoBP has set up a fighting fund to continue our efforts to stop the proposed road. If you want to donate, contact the FoBP Hon Treasurer, 89 Delawyk Crescent, London SE24 9JD
We have recently discovered Lord Rosebery's stirring words when he opened Brockwell Park in 1892. You can see the speech here - his words make it clear he did not anticipate the effects of local government vandalism.
The two links are:
link1 (http://www.brockwellpark.com/misc/special_council.htm)
speech (http://www.brockwellpark.com/misc/rosebery.htm)
gaijingirl
16-07-2008, 17:47
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
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
17-07-2008, 10:58
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
17-07-2008, 11:10
plans to partially destroy it with a new road
Yet more hyperbole from FoBP...
christonabike
17-07-2008, 12:44
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
:)
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
17-07-2008, 21:43
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.
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.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.