Safety for cyclists is one of my most important concerns. If we as a community cannot prove cycling is safe then we will never be able to convince the non-cycling masses to make the switch even for the short errand to the local shop etc.
Southwark Council has closed Burgess Park for 9 months whilst they carry out a major redevelopment. My regular readers will know this is an important route for cyclists heading southeast from central London. The route avoids the Old Kent Road (the A2) and Walworth Road (the A215). I am currently involved in an email exchange with the project managers about the closure; more of that in the future.
The developers have suggested that cyclists use the roads around the perimeter of the park as an alternative for the duration. I have been wondering (in line with my cycling safely theme) about the amount of thought that the authorities give to the impact on road users before they decide to close a route – particularly cyclists and pedestrians.
Here is an excerpt from an email in response to my protest about Burgess Park:
....we have explored options of keeping parts of the park open such as the canal path which is very popular with cyclists. However, this was not considered to be the most feasible option not just for health and safety as you mention, which is true, but mainly to do with the cost of putting up extra hoardings and fencing. We do not have the budget to spend additional money on extra hoardings. Secondly, the project needs to be completed by March 2012, which is one of the conditions of the funding.Reading this there can be no doubt that it is finance which drives the decision.
It is likewise clear that thinking does not extend to the wider issues. The developers are (rightly) concerned that the environment of the site is safe. But little or no thought appears to have been given to the management of displaced traffic. The perimeter roads around the park may be fairly described as rat-runs for motor vehicles avoiding the main roads. The roads are in a very poor state of repair. On the direct alternative to the East-West traverse through the park, there are traffic calming ramps and humps; the road (St Georges Way) is narrow and very heavily trafficked. There are parked vehicles on either side of the road; those on the north side create dangerous pinch points.
There are solutions to this:
Prior to closure the peripheral roads could have been made a temporary one way system. This would have discouraged the rat-run scenario.
Temporary parking restrictions could have been set up to reduce the number of pinch points.
The roads could have been resurfaced making the ride more comfortable.
None of this has been done. But more importantly were any of these measures even considered. That is what I am hoping to find out. I have sent the following questions to the project managers and I await a response.
Prior to commencement of this project what thought was given to the routes that cyclists would be forced to use as an alternative to the park.and when I know more I shall tell you so watch this space.
Did the council consider introducing a temporary cycle lane in St Georges Way? If not why not?
Did the council consider introducing a temporary one way system around the park to facilitate cycle movements during the redevelopment? If not why not?
Did the council consider resurfacing very poor road surfaces on these alternative routes to benefit cyclists during these diversions? If not why not?
In the meantime do you know of similar projects either where the authority has done its planning and preparation properly or where there is a complete breakdown and road users - particularly cyclists - are abandoned to their own devices. I shall be interested to hear!
Finally my stats:
Rides this week: 4
Rides per week: 3.2
Public transport days: 1
Oyster costs: £7.20**
Annual Oyster costs: £567.20*
Commuting miles this week: 94.01
Commuting miles this year: 2529
*Includes some non-commuting journeys
**to be updated
Just one public transport day to spoil my figures.
TyT
No comments:
Post a Comment