Category Archives: Traffic

Our Street, Property, Security, Traffic

Safer Neighbourhood Panel

Leave a comment

The Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction Safer Neighbourhood Panel held its quarterly meeting on 6 December in the boardroom of King’s College Hospital. I attended on behalf of Fawnbrake and neighbouring streets; there were representatives from Coldharbour Lane, Rollscourt Avenue/Woodquest Avenue and Sunset Road. Councillor Dickson attended, as one of the councillors for the ward, as did Police Sergeant Obiola (our Ward Sergeant), Police Constables Keita and Paterson, and PCSO Mo, who has been a familiar face in the streets for several years often to be seen on his bicycle. The panel is chaired by John Frankland.

The police talked us through their crime reports for the three months August – September 2022. These are not deeply detailed, but show an increase (in October) of robbery (i.e. theft from persons or premises with the implicit or explicit threat of violence) often of mobile phones; theft, e.g. of bicycles and shoplifting; and a small increase in burglary.

Compared with the same period the previous year, the aggregate number of recorded incidents was down by two, but theft and robbery offences had risen. In current economic circumstances, these numbers can be expected to rise further. Drug offences were down but I suspect that this is because the police seem not to interfere with the very visible drug addicts such as we might see, for instance, around Herne Hill station and in Brixton, in instances where it isn’t obvious and provable that an offence is taken place. Where serious drug users (who are often troubled by mental illnesses as well) become a public nuisance, often the only remedy for the police is to arrest them and section them to a mental hospital, which will then release them after a day or so.

That said, the police did obtain a warrant for the search of a known drug distribution operation on Mayall Road, though on this occasion no evidence was collected. The house is reportedly very active again and it is possible that another raid could take place, as the neighbours and other residents are of course troubled and distressed by the presence of this activity on their doorstep. Bicycle theft does continue, and the police are very keen to advise bike owners to register their bikes with bikeregister.com  and immobilise.com.     In addition, the police managed to arrest and charge a male exposing in Ruskin Park; he was released on a bail condition not to be in the park.

A number of other issues were raised and discussed, not all of them matters for the police (so not mentioned here). Some people were worried about the rise of E-scooters being driven (usually illegally) at speed on roads and sometimes even on pavements – amounting in practice to antisocial behaviour. The police representatives sympathised but explained that a foot patrol or even a patrol in a police car could normally not physically stop and warn/arrest the scooter drivers: an operation involving several units would be needed and this seemed not to be very high priority – though some of us warned that if this phenomenon continued unabated, there would eventually be severe injuries or maybe even deaths of pedestrians or other road users. It is very much a London-wide or maybe even a national problem, exacerbated by the government’s ambiguous rules.

Another issue was organised night-time drug dealing on the corner of the Rollscourt Avenue and Kestrel Avenue, near the doctor’s surgery. This normally attracted some drug users on foot to be supplied from a car. There seemed to be no threat to other members of the public but it was disturbing to residents. The police said they would keep an eye on this.

I mentioned the phenomenon, familiar on our street, of parked cars being opened and disturbed overnight. The police thought that this was often conducted by drug users looking for small amounts of cash or something to sell. They offered no remedy except, obviously, to keep the cars locked and empty of stealable property.  Another issue was the regular sighting of discarded nitrous oxide gas cylinders, presumably left by abusers who seem to be graduating to much larger cylinders.

Traffic speeding generally was a concern, as in the past. The small team responsible for the Community Road Watch seemed to have been dispersed but needs to be reinstated. Mr Frankland will pursue this.

The next meeting will take place in March 2023.

Our Street, Parking, Traffic

Lambeth coyly reveals its policy on Electric Vehicle charging points

1 Comment

Neighbours may remember our report in June about an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point being installed, with no clear warning or explanation, outside a resident’s house. He protested – not at the concept of an EV charging point, which of course no-one could really object to, but at the lack of consultation, given that a crumpled laminated notice replete with official jargon hanging from the lamppost just like another appeal for lost cats, could scarcely be regarded as consultation.

In response a senior officer of the council – having in due course ordered the demarcation of a dedicated EV parking slot outside our neighbour’s house – has just sent him a lengthy statement which explains their approach.

 

 

 

 

 

This is an attempt to summarise and simplify what they are saying.

Free bonus

Any reader with a thirst for more information and a capacity for council jargon can spend a happy hour or so ploughing through a report and appendices buried deep on the Lambeth website.

Meanwhile, here goes…

1. Lambeth assume that the EV market and user demands will rise and that the council should therefore cater for existing and potential EV users. But preserving normal CPZ parking bays adjacent to a new charging point could create difficulties and conflicts, hence the need for dedicated areas. The council assume that internal combustion engine (ICE) users and non-recharging EV users should still be able to find a permit space elsewhere locally (noting correctly that residents have no automatic right to park at their preferred length of kerbside).

2. Lambeth aim to increase the number of lamp column charge points across the borough, and as the EV market develops the council will need to keep their policy under review in supporting the increased demand for recharging. They say that not every lamp column would automatically be appropriate for a charge point installation. But even if almost all suitable lamp columns were to be converted into a charge point, they say, there would still be the risk that ICE vehicles could obstruct access to EV users wishing to recharge their vehicles – hence the need to provide dedicated EV charging bays, barred to other vehicles including even EV cars when they are not being charged. (Comment: if, at some future point, all cars were electric, demand for charging points could not be met simply by converting lamp posts, of course. What then?)

3. Lambeth have a general target to achieve. Particularly in roads with minimal off-street parking, no EV vehicle owner should be further than five minutes away from a charge point. Once this aim is met, additional charge points (e.g. in this case) can be provided to cater for known demands. (Er, how do they assess demand?) They rather defensively pointed out that a notice was erected explaining their intention – but our neighbour’s robust response to this feeble excuse points out, as mentioned above, that while there is general public support for the electric charging policy, Lambeth’s failure to properly communicate their policies and decisions typifies, unfortunately, the council’s tendency to impose policies with negligible explanation: “a half decent consultation programme would have dissipated a lot of the current unhappiness”.

The big unknowns

No-one seems to know whether the take-up of electric cars will accelerate or stagnate. Obviously there is no exhaust pollution from EVs, which is a huge benefit. But there is ample doubt about the wider economic and environmental benefits and costs, when you take into account the need for much additional electricity generation (by what means?), the painful cost of securing the rare ingredients for the batteries, which in addition cannot be safely recycled when they expire; and the gigantic environmental and financial cost of disposing of perfectly efficient modern diesel and hybrid vehicles in order to comply with government targets.

So I suppose Lambeth can be forgiven, in this sense, for keeping options open and proceeding step-by-step.

They are still rubbish at communication though.

Events, Our Street, Parking, Traffic

Lambeth Country Show 2022 – parking restrictions and street closures

Leave a comment

After a two-year break, like Glastonbury (er, perhaps not quite the same …), Lambeth Country Show is back this year, on Saturday 16 & Sunday 17 July. It will run from 12 noon to 8pm on each day (last entry 7:30pm). Click here for the publicity blurb.

The consequential street closures and parking bans near to Brockwell Park are pretty comprehensive. Even for those of us who live just a little further away from Brockwell Park, one inevitable impact is the complicated series of temporary traffic orders which impose one-way traffic systems on certain nearby roads and road closures, and parking suspensions too. And not just for the weekend of the Show.

Although the Country Show runs for only two days, the numerous traffic orders extend from 7 July until 24 July.

The list of temporary traffic and parking restrictions has been published in a recent issue of the South London Press newspaper. They are probably also published on Lambeth Council’s website but we haven’t found them there yet. On the other hand there are the usual laminated A4 notices attached to lamp posts all over the place, like this one spotted on Milkwood Road.

Traffic Order on Milkwood Road, 30 June 2022

It would be unbelievably tedious to list all the orders here. But the South London Press have also posted the full legal Order on their own website .

Impact on Fawnbrake and neighbouring streets

Just to pick out two or three details that might affect us living in this corner of Herne Hill:

  • In Gubyon Avenue there will be one-way traffic system for all vehicles in the direction towards Herne Hill
  • There will be one-way traffic on Milkwood Road between the bridge in Herne Hill and Gubyon Avenue
  • Vehicles driving on Herne Hill will be banned from entering Gubyon Avenue
  • Vehicles driving down Fawnbrake Avenue towards the centre of Herne Hill will be banned from turning right into Gubyon Avenue

However there is a sort of opt out. The Notice says that the “one-way traffic systems, bans and suspensions would only apply at such times as shall be indicated by the placing or covering of traffic signs and ‘no parking cones’”.

So, as ever, we will need to be sharp-eyed looking for such signs.

Our Street, Parking, Property, Traffic, Transport

Electric cars – where can we charge them (and other problems)?

Leave a comment

I’m afraid I have shamelessly lifted this article from a recent Spectator website. It attracted a very high number of interesting comments, which I cannot begin to reproduce.

But the many problems of electric vehicles – including not just the initial cost but also their weight, the environmental impact of the raw materials, their high demands on the electricity network and of course, as mentioned below, the obvious problem of where they can be charged especially in a crowded city – are beginning to dawn on people. True, some houses on Fawnbrake Avenue have been able to convert their front gardens to a parking space, thereby solving one of the problems. But a majority of residents don’t have that option. And lamp-post charging sets off a whole number of other complications.

 

“With their private jets and gas-guzzling mansions, delegates at Cop26 have been widely criticised for an elitist attitude towards the environment. Nothing better demonstrates the gulf between policymakers and ordinary people than over the charging points for electric cars. It is one thing to install a home charging point for your car if you own a large house up a crunchy gravel driveway – indeed, according to the property website Rightmove, owners of such properties have been fitting charging points with great enthusiasm, with a 541 per cent increase in the number of homes being advertised with such a facility over the past year.

But what do you do if you live in one of the 43 per cent of homes which do not have off-street parking? In fact, you don’t necessarily have to be of modest means to live in such a house – there are plenty of city centre homes, in Belgravia and such places to boot, which open straight onto the pavement. Owning a car in a city has not been easy ever since controlled parking and traffic wardens started to appear in the 1960s, but it is just about to get a whole lot more difficult. Even if you can find somewhere to charge an electric car the electricity is likely to be several times more expensive than plugging it in to your home supply.

That said, there have been some trials with on-street recharging points, which may be coming to a street near you soon. Under the Go Ultra Low City Scheme, 1000 on-street charging points were installed in London in 2019 – utilising existing lamp-posts. You are not going to get a rapid charging point from the electricity supply to a lamp-post – they are limited to 3.7 kW – but it is enough for an overnight charge. Reading, too, has been experimenting with fixing sockets to existing lamp-posts.

But there are still many problems to overcome. In Reading, many street lamps proved to be unsuitable because there are installed on the nearside of the pavement, which would have required a cable to be dangled dangerously across the footway. Pedestrians face enough obstructions without having to step over an electric cable every few yards. That problem could be overcome by excavating small channels beneath the pavement so that a cable can be run across without tripping people up. One company, Greenmole, in association with Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Salford has been installing just that: channels which lead from a motorist’s own home to the roadside, to enable charging. It comes at a price – such an installation will cost you around £3000. But there is a bigger problem, too: very few people have a reserved parking place directly outside their home – even where parking permit schemes exist they tend to allow parking on a street-by-street or area-by-area basis, not to individually-designated parking spaces.

As more electric cars come into use, there are going to be intense battles over this. Should homeowners be allowed to claim parking spaces directly outside their homes so they can charge their vehicles more easily – and if so, what should they be charged for the privilege? After all, the public highway is supposed to be a facility for all, not for bits effectively to be privatised for the exclusive benefit of nearby property-owners. In any case, reserving parking spaces outside homes is not going to help everyone. If you have a house, say, divided into three flats, who, if anyone, gets to bag the single streetside parking space?

One thing is for sure, until the problem of charging electric vehicles on the streets is solved, properties with off-street parking are likely to command an even greater premium than they already do. The Battle of Cable Steet is long remembered as the struggle between communists and fascists in the 1930s. The Battle of Street Cabling has yet to come.”

Traffic, Transport

New ULEZ restrictions – and heavy charges – fast approaching

Leave a comment

Just a reminder that from 25 October 2021, the existing central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will expand to create a single larger zone up to, but not including, the North Circular Road (A406) and South Circular Road (A205).

That includes us, obviously.

TfL have a link which tells us whether our cars meet the emissions standard and the charges we shall need to pay. Four out of five cars, they say,  already meet the ULEZ emissions standards, but they need owners of older polluting cars, motorcycles, lighter vans and minibuses to take action. (Meaning? … sell the offending vehicle to somewhere outside London, presumably  –  and no doubt at a loss.)

This is the link.

ULEZ expansion could cost £12.50 per day when your car moves

Cars, motorcycles, vans and other specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes), and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes) will either need to meet the ULEZ emissions standards, or pay a £12.50 daily charge when driving within the expanded ULEZ zone.  You will not be charged for a non-compliant vehicle parked in the zone on days you don’t drive it (how gracious of the Mayor!).

The ULEZ operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year except Christmas Day (25 December).

The current ULEZ emissions standards will continue:

• Euro 3 (NOx) for motorcycles, mopeds, motorised tricycles and quadricycles
• Euro 4 (NOx) for petrol cars, vans and other specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes)
• Euro 6 (NOx and PM) for diesel cars, vans and other specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes)

What isn’t clear is how TfL will check vehicle movements (and therefore surcharge liability). Presumably we will see an expanded network of cameras such as already exist within the present Congestion Charge/ULEZ zone.

Traffic

How much is this bit of road worth?

5 Comments

Yes, this bit…

Townley Road, joining East Dulwich Grove

For Southwark Council, this patch of tarmac is paved with gold.

All you need is some signs and a traffic camera.

Since the Emergency Traffic Measures came into effect, Southwark Council has ensured that these few metres  –  where Townley Road and Calton Avenue converge at the traffic lights to join East Dulwich Grove  –  have raised, at a conservative estimate, over £200,000 from drivers who either missed or misinterpreted the warning signs, or alternatively mistimed their journey.

If you are driving back to Herne Hill from East Dulwich and decide go up Lordship Lane and then take a right turn along Townley Road to run between Alleyn’s School and their playing field, you might miss the warning signs at the beginning of the stretch. But if you do, as you reach the last few metres before the traffic lights at East Dulwich Grove, you are doomed unless you decide to enrage the tailback of traffic behind you by doing a three-point turn to beat a retreat.

Because this is the sign you see:

By the time you have registered what it says, you are trapped.

Within a week or two, the post brings a Penalty Charge Notice that graciously allows you to pay a mere £65 for prompt settlement. The detail of the contravention is stated as “using a route restricted to certain vehicles”.

In some parts of Dulwich around the Village, similar signs have raised even more. The northbound camera in Dulwich Village by the corner of Pickwick Road has raised £695,300.

These figures, revealed in response to a Freedom of Information request recently tabled by a neighbour, only take us to the end of March. No doubt the council’s tills are still ringing. For the wider Dulwich area, Southwark admits to having raised over £1 million during this period.

One consequence is significant traffic displacement. Our local LTNs have caused sharply divided opinions and vigourous debate. Some closures seem more pragmatically sited than others. But the annoying feature about this particular trap on Townley Road   –  readers may of course disagree  –  is that the prevention of traffic taking this route seems to serve no obvious purpose in reducing street pollution, unless it is to cut down on cars, vans and trucks driving past Alleyn’s School at busy school times. Thus, weekends are excluded. But not, mark you, school holidays or even lockdown when the school was empty.

Over time, the penalties do of course work to deter traffic at this point during those stated times, if that is the intention: once stung, one avoids the area scrupulously. So you just find an alternative way home, along busier roads.

Herne Hill, Security, Traffic

Fighting with a Leylandii cypress hedge?

1 Comment

If you walk to or from the centre of Herne Hill via Herne Hill itself, rather than by Milkwood Road, you may have felt the aggression of the Leylandii hedge pictured here. It’s on the right-hand side (going downhill) outside the flats at number 90 Herne Hill.

Outside no 90 Herne Hill

It extrudes over the 2 metre wide pavement, 70 cm at the bottom of the bushes, but is well over a metre wide at an adult’s shoulder height – over half the pavement’s width. Preserving social distancing, families and couples walking up or down the hill might expect anyone walking the other way to step off the pavement to give them space to pass – but if they do, the uphill pedestrian(s) cannot see the traffic behind them and may rely on hearing and inaccurately judge the situation.

So this could be a tragic accident waiting to happen, all because someone – presumably the owner of the block of flats at number 90 – has failed to maintain the hedge properly.

Further, the nearby pedestrian crossing outside the Church also serves Herne Hill School with 280 pupils aged from 2-7, so there can be well over 300 people gathering at different times of the morning and afternoon, often with smaller siblings in buggies.

The Herne Hill Society have been informally asked to see whether Lambeth Council can deal with this issue, perhaps by themselves cutting the hedge back to the wall, if they have the legal powers to do so.

One of our councillors, Jim Dickson, has been made aware of the problem and has promised to look into it. Meanwhile, please take care when navigating this bullying obstacle.

Whether it’s worth expecting the council to do anything to diminish the pollution thrown out by the traffic converging from all directions, at a snail’s pace, on our junction under the bridge – well, that may be too much to ask. ‘Unintended consequences’ …

Our Street, Traffic

speed humps on Milkwood Road

Leave a comment

Lambeth are proposing to place full-scale speed humps on Milkwood Road in the hope of lowering the traffic speeds that make the road dangerous. They invite comments via this link.

It’s difficult to imagine  any local resident objecting to this measure. Many of us have stared, astonished, at cars, vans and motorbikes roaring down Milkwood in speeds clearly in excess of the 20 MPH limit.

But maybe we shall need to monitor whether such a measure, if introduced (supposedly in August),  displaces fast traffic onto Fawnbrake Avenue.

General, Parking, Parks, Traffic, Transport

Parking in Dulwich Park – again

2 Comments

Over on Twitter, one or two people commented on our recent story about Southwark’s proposed parking charges in Dulwich Park. They said rather smugly that no-one should take their cars there anyway, and that walking is more environmentally correct.  Conventional fair comment, but not everyone is fit enough to walk two or three miles to visit a park or a gallery.  Oh, I suppose they can always summon a Uber …

A nicer and more balanced opinion has appeared from one of our neighbours here in Fawnbrake.  To save scrolling down, I’ll reproduce it here too:

“Another reason to visit the park regularly is to attend the many Dulwich & District U3A groups that meet in Rosebery Lodge. Many Herne Hill residents are signed up for these. Personally, though by nature lazy, I get out the bike and cycle to my group, so am feeling rather smug about the planned charges. But this is not an option for everyone and the absence of a good bus service makes it more difficult. But I do commend cycling. And from where I am in Fawnbrake you can always avoid the climb up Kestrel (and Ruskin Walk on the return) by taking the slightly longer way round along Milkwood Road. And from Half Moon lane turn into quiet Winterbrook Road, where soon the Japanese cherries will be flowering – a real delight.”

Rosebery Lodge, Dulwich Park
Herne Hill, Traffic, Transport

We’re going to be ‘liveable’, it seems

Leave a comment

A recent press release from The Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) has announced an extension of the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme that promises improvements in Brixton and Herne Hill. This follows a bid from Lambeth.

The general intention – an ambitious one, for sure – is that junctions will be made safer, new cycle infrastructure built, and traffic reduced on residential streets to enable more Londoners to walk, cycle and use public transport, and clean up the capital’s toxic air. The scheme promises new walking and cycling infrastructure, new pedestrian crossings and rat runs closed to motor traffic. New pocket parks (er, what’s that?) and revamped public spaces will improve air quality and make local streets more attractive places, helping to support local high streets.

Atlantic Road (image from TfL)

The element of the programme closest to us is focused around Atlantic Road in Brixton, which will be transformed for people walking, cycling and using the bus. Local freight access will be maintained with technology utilised to better manage loading and servicing. Investment will overhaul public spaces, widen footways and add new pedestrian crossings, creating a more welcoming environment for the area’s many visitors, residents and businesses.

Brixton to Herne Hill cycle route

There is not much more detail at present, but the official TfL/Mayor’s office statement says the project will build high-quality infrastructure on three key strategic cycle routes: Brixton to Clapham Common, Brixton to Camberwell and Brixton to Herne Hill. “Low traffic neighbourhoods” will be created in the Ferndale and Railton neighbourhoods and a new, fully segregated cycle route will link to the Loughborough neighbourhood.

We await more information with interest. If the project can do something about the heavy and often dangerous traffic along Milkwood Road, and on Herne Hill Road, that would be a bonus.