London SE1 community website

Elephant & Castle Northern Roundabout - latest plans

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 7 of 22
Wednesday 5 March 2014 1.28pm
I don't see that longer drive times for vehicles also equals longer crossing times for pedestrians. A key part of the reason behind increased transit times for cars is the fact that there will now be pedestrian crossings. It will be the pedestrians holding the cars up. So it does not follow that the 17% extra time for cars leads to 17%+ for pedestrians.
Wednesday 5 March 2014 2.52pm
You're right William. Longer drive times for vehicles need not equal longer crossing times for pedestrians. It's just that the proposal concocted by TfL means that it will result in longer journey times for motorists and pedestrians. Let me clarify, those percentage figures are from TfL, I have quoted them word for word. Yes it's crazy, but that's the modelling research they are basing their proposal on.

Like you I assume the proposal increases journey times for motorists because of the extra traffic lights (not just to let pedestrians cross but also traffic pass) as well as the increased length of the ring-road for west bound traffic. The proposal would make journeys for pedestrians longer because they are all forced to wait at lights to cross the roads and some routes are a longer distance than today's configuration (e.g. from London Road south side heading towards the shopping centre). If the southern junctions set up installed in 2011 is any guide then we might even have a ratio of 5 seconds for pedestrians to cross half way versus over a minute for traffic to use the same section of road.

Is this really an improvement worth approving? The Elephant deserves better. The plan is a bodge.

As for the recently released CGI image posted on this website http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7439... how clever of TfL to crop off the 6 lane high way on the western side of the junction, to artfully remove the very recently installed income generating massive LED ad hoarding which would block their view from Newington Causeway (TfL confirmed to me in October in a face to face meeting no advertising hoardings would in fact be removed) and to decorate it all in green-wash foliage which is in no way part of the current round of consultation - manipulative propaganda at its worst.

williamn wrote:
I don't see that longer drive times for vehicles also equals longer crossing times for pedestrians. A key part of the reason behind increased transit times for cars is the fact that there will now be pedestrian crossings. It will be the pedestrians holding the cars up. So it does not follow that the 17% extra time for cars leads to 17%+ for pedestrians.
Wednesday 5 March 2014 3.33pm
It is, to put it politely, a cock up. I cannot see a single point in its favour.
Wednesday 5 March 2014 3.42pm
While I wouldn't want to pretend this process was done properly, or even well, removal of the subways and peninsularisation wasn't cooked up by Cllr John in a smoke-filled-room plotting session with Lendlease. It was presented for public consultation in 2004 as part of the illustrative masterplan, the received 80% support in the most thorough consultation yet done (so I understand), and has been the local policy of aspiration (if not practicality in the years since).

Document is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82420796/Southwark-Council-2004-Development-Framework

We then had a length SPD consultation in 2012-13, where much time was spent reading and responding to the draft, and which affirmed in SPD11 that policy was to

"Provide for access at surface level; the existing subways at the Elephant and Castle northern
roundabout should be removed and replaced by surface level pedestrian crossings."

The whole point of having an illustrative masterplan, or an SPD is to avoid people later raising concerns about what subsequently happens. Whether you agree with it or not, this isn't a surprise and its unfair to accuse the council (gosh, i'm defending them) of doing this by stealth.
Thursday 6 March 2014 12.52pm
Perronetonian wrote:

"TfL has measured pedestrian journey times through the junction ...preliminary modelling has shown that under the proposal this is anticipated to increase by around 10%."

- SO CAR JOURNEY TIMES WILL INCREASE BY 10%.

"the average journey time for general traffic is currently 222 seconds and that, at this stage, this likely to increase by an average of around 17% in the proposal."

- SO PEDESTRIANS JOURNEY TIMES WILL INCREASE BY EVEN MORE AT 17%.

It seems you've mixed up your statistics unless I am misunderstanding something. It is vehicular traffic journey times that will increase by 17% according to your quotes. Presumably, with proportionally slower journeys for vehicles and improved conditions for cyclists (and perhaps for pedestrians - though I know you disagree about this), there will be a reduction in the number of journeys by motor vehicles as people choose alternative routes or alternative modes of transport. All this needs to be taken into account in a detailed model of the effects on local pollution.
Tuesday 11 March 2014 3.43pm
Consultation opens tomorrow

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/elephant-and-castle/consult_view

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Tuesday 11 March 2014 4.13pm
Thanks James. You're right. I have mixed them up. Thankfully I quoted the original source so this mistake was visible. I will amend elsewhere. That pedestrian journey times will increase is still seems very counterintuitive to the prevailing promise by politicians and TfL that this will be a better space for them to pass through. An that motor traffic is actually up more has even worse implications for air pollution.

I asked TfL in my meeting with them if the design was intended to motivate motorists to go elsewhere, as has been suggested on this thread previously. They said no, that it is designed to maintain the current capacity and that as a strategic route, a ring road, it remains an essential part of the network. Having said that however the design does force some traffic to go elsewhere because of the ban of turns left from or right into Newington Causeway.

Has anyone received any post or e-mail from TfL with their proposal? Their consultation manager Emma Crittenden promised attendees of Community Council on 1 Feb that we'd be getting letters, e-mails, but there's been nothing? Even the blurb in the Evening Standard only showed the dodgy CGI, not the actual layout.

James Johnston wrote:
Perronetonian wrote:

"TfL has measured pedestrian journey times through the junction ...preliminary modelling has shown that under the proposal this is anticipated to increase by around 10%."

- SO CAR JOURNEY TIMES WILL INCREASE BY 10%.

"the average journey time for general traffic is currently 222 seconds and that, at this stage, this likely to increase by an average of around 17% in the proposal."

- SO PEDESTRIANS JOURNEY TIMES WILL INCREASE BY EVEN MORE AT 17%.

It seems you've mixed up your statistics unless I am misunderstanding something. It is vehicular traffic journey times that will increase by 17% according to your quotes. Presumably, with proportionally slower journeys for vehicles and improved conditions for cyclists (and perhaps for pedestrians - though I know you disagree about this), there will be a reduction in the number of journeys by motor vehicles as people choose alternative routes or alternative modes of transport. All this needs to be taken into account in a detailed model of the effects on local pollution.
Tuesday 11 March 2014 5.05pm
Well I'm wondering how I'm going to get in or out of my building since Newington Causeway is our only access to Metro Central Heights.
Tuesday 11 March 2014 5.15pm
jackie rokotnitz wrote:
Well I'm wondering how I'm going to get in or out of my building since Newington Causeway is our only access to Metro Central Heights.

For a MCH resident heading to the SE (e.g. Old Kent Road) you'd have to turn right not left out of your car park and get home via Great Dover Street not New Kent Road. Quite a few negative side effects there for residents of these roads - something Lyla and I highlighted in our most recent campaign video at SaveOurSubways.org)... though it does at least remove some traffic from the roundabout. This is just the kind of trade off a thorough consultation should help reconcile, though I fear it's a detail that will be glossed over in TfL's presentation.
Wednesday 12 March 2014 8.00pm
The smokeless closed door gatherings at which the current proposals (designed by a team at TfL all new to the project since summer 2012) was fleshed out is the Elephant Strategic Stakeholder Forum, which represents local developers, the council and local institutions NOT the very many adjacent residents or in fact users.

2004's plan is not only long ago, but at a time when the cross river tram and other changes to the road network would have significantly reduced the traffic volumes than what this proposal requires to pass through. The peninsula and subway removals are partly remnants of this and partly fashionable prejudices, so desirable in the eyes of supporters that the negative consequences on pollution and journey time for pedestrians (and road users if you care for them too) and residents is considered acceptable.

There are two good reasons why the issue of subways wasn't tackled at the SPD stage. One was that Southwark and TfL publicly explicitly promised deep community involvement in the roundabouts redesign in this period, there was even one stormy workshop and CGI video unveiled of an earlier design, as if to say - don't concern yourself with this portion of the SPD. Secondly local residents were focused and successful in booting out of the SPD the plan to snarl up St George's Road with two way traffic leaving it empty enough to now become the cycling thoroughfare with narrower roadway now proposed - by far and away the best bit of what TfL are proposing, but possible regardless of any reconfiguration of the roundabout.

jamesup wrote:
While I wouldn't want to pretend this process was done properly, or even well, removal of the subways and peninsularisation wasn't cooked up by Cllr John in a smoke-filled-room plotting session with Lendlease. It was presented for public consultation in 2004 as part of the illustrative masterplan, the received 80% support in the most thorough consultation yet done (so I understand), and has been the local policy of aspiration (if not practicality in the years since).
Document is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82420796/Southwark-Council-2004-Development-Framework

We then had a length SPD consultation in 2012-13, where much time was spent reading and responding to the draft, and which affirmed in SPD11 that policy was to

"Provide for access at surface level; the existing subways at the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout should be removed and replaced by surface level pedestrian crossings."

The whole point of having an illustrative masterplan, or an SPD is to avoid people later raising concerns about what subsequently happens. Whether you agree with it or not, this isn't a surprise and its unfair to accuse the council (gosh, i'm defending them) of doing this by stealth.
Current: 7 of 22

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions