An update on Rosendale Road – Quietways

This consultation is now closed. Please refer to the Lambeth consultation website for the latest update.quietways logo_rosendale

You gave us your views and ideas at the Co Design events. The information boards below show the issues raised and the ideas suggested by people for different locations during the Co Design process. They also give an explanation of how the ideas shown in the design drawings work.

Come and be a part of the next step. We appreciate all your feedback.

Concept Designs:

Based on your feedback Sustrans engineers and designers are now working on the development of concept designs with Lambeth officers.

The designs will incorporate a number of different options. They aim to address the issues raised and include, where possible, suggestions for improvements.

Concept Design Showcase Events:

It’s important to stress that the designs are not finalised at this stage. Sustrans and Lambeth council will be holding two events:

  • Sunday 6th of December 10.30am – 1.30pm – Drop in at anytime
  • Wednesday 9th of December 6.30pm – 8.30pm – Drop in at anytime

Both events will be held at Rosendale Primary School, Rosendale Road, SE21 8LR.

This will be an opportunity to see what we’ve come up with so far, talk to us about the design options, tell us what you like about them and what you would change.

Please complete the online feedback form by  Sunday 20th December in order for it to be taken into account when creating the consultation design. Please click on this link to access the online survey.

The designs and are available below. These include :

The visualisations show the shops and 2 of the junction options A. They will help you get an idea of how it might look.

What will happen next?

One final design will be created based on feedback from these workshops. This design will then go into a formal public consultation in January. Residents will be notified by post and you’ll be able to contribute online.

We hope you can come along to one of our events. In the meantime, if you have any questions please get in touch with us at RosendaleFeedback@sustrans.org.uk.

To find  out more information about Quietways in Lambeth please visit our quietways page 

Design Options for Rosendale Road. Please click on the links below.

Park Hall Rosendale Junction Option A

Park Hall Rosendale Junction Option B

Turney, Dalkeith, Rosendale Junction Option A

Turney, Dalkeith, Rosendale Junction Option B

Lovelace Rosendale Junction Option A

Lovelace, Rosendale Junction Option B

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

17 Responses to An update on Rosendale Road – Quietways

  1. […] Have your say on the new design proposals on this link.  […]

    • Advisory Cycle Lanes – if vehicles are still allowed to park on Rosendale then the cycle lanes will be blocked by cars. There will be no change to the present situation. As a cyclist I’m fed with being squashed between parked and aggressively driven cars.

      If segregated cycle lanes are not an option then what can be done to deter non-local car users.

      • As another two wheeler (of 36 years daily commuting!) I can safely assure that this will be a total waste, plus really inconvenient to residents. Just leave the roads alone and encourage mutual respect and common sense among road users.
        Stop feeding these transport quangos that want to soak up taxpayers money.

      • To offer an answer your query about non local car use: remove all and any traffic controls on all and every road. The naturally evolved flow of the road system would re establish itself in a short time. Cyclists would again have the “quietways” that existed before penpushers began meddling with the roads circa 90’s.

  2. Both plans of Lovelace / Rosendale junction show proposed parking on Lovelace spur. This proposed parking would make the use of resident driveways on this stretch difficult and dangerous as parked vehicles would block large vehicles and in option A require parked vehicles to turn around in a narrow roadway, most likely resulting in driving upon the sidewalk or entering private driveways.
    NOTE: currently there is NO PARKING allowed on this spur for good reason. Please do not incorporate parking on this spur using either option.

  3. All the options for each intersection do not account for large vehicle and truck parking for short and prolonged periods along Rosendale Rd., which effectively reduce the drivable road width of Rosendale Rd. All options proposed have two 1m wide cycle paths, the current amount of truck/van parking will negate the safe use of the cycle paths, forcing the cyclists into the, at times, heavy traffic flow.
    If the intent of the proposed re-engineering is to create a safe cycling environment along this stretch of Rosendale Rd. then large vehicle, truck and van parking should be prohibited.
    NOTE: prolonged truck and van parking is not allowed on the stretch of Rosendale Rd., south of the 205 S.Curcular, why is it condoned on the north end of Rosendale Rd.
    Not one of the currently parked vans and trucks are owned by local residents. They are parked there by other area residents because they can’t or won’t park them in their own neighbourhoods.

    • environmentlambeth says:

      Thank you for your comment. I’ve directed your feedback to our collegues in Lambeth. Please also have your say on the online survey.

  4. I agree that it would be preferable to prohibit prolonged van and truck parking on Rosendale Road North in order to ensure these cycle lanes are as safe as possible. These vehicles make the road difficult to cycle along, obscure the speed warning signs and eliminates pedestrian ‘line of sight’ when trying to cross the road. And none is parked outside their owners’ properties.

    • Little did we know that the cycle way along Turney and Rosendale Roads is to facilitate the cycle connection up Gypsy Hill Rd. to Crystal Palace.
      NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CYCLES UP OR DOWN GYPSY HILL RD.
      Gyspy Hill Rd. is so steep and narrow that even with a cycle lane, no one will use it nor any parent will want their children to use it.
      No cyclist use it now. This is route choice from looking at a map and not knowing the actual terrain.
      What cyclists do use and what should be the cycle-way is through Dulwich along College Road and up to Crystal Palace via the less steep and wide Crystal Palace Rd.
      The use of Turney and Rosendale Roads leading to Gypsy Hill Rd. is a most dangerous diversion from the safe, shortest, now well used College Road.
      Who has an answer for this??

      • environmentlambeth says:

        Thank you for your comments. Your feedback has been logged.

        Please also complete our online survey to help us with working up one design for consultation. Let us know which features you would like to see go into the consultation design by selecting them. You can also leave a specific comment about any of the features. There is no minimum or maximum number of selections required by the survey. You can select as many as you like!

        The results of the survey will be available in January.

      • Hi George,

        The cycle route is supposed to go up Dulwich Wood Avenue & Farquhar Road. This is a good route that I use very regularly (approaching from Alleyn Road, usually). Gipsy Hill Road is a bad one.. I do cycle up and down it sometimes (as do a surprising number of people) but the gradient is crazy & traffic speeds are high (20mph limit? they laugh at it).

        I have suggested to the Councils that the Quietway should run as follows:

        Clive Road

        Hamilton Road

        2-way Cycle Contraflow on Paxton Place (small, narrow, but very low traffic)

        Cycle/pedestrian hybrid Zebra crossing of Gipsy Road (where the existing Zebra is)

        Cycle / pedestrian hybrid Zebra crossing of Gipsy Hill (where the raised table & traffic island is – this should be a Zebra!)

        & then either:

        – Diagonally through/around the unloved, and unused except for dogs to c**p in, Long Meadow.

        or:

        – shared cycle/pedestrian surface from the Gipsy Hill junction to the northernmost end of Dulwich Wood Avenue. A small amount of land could be taken from the dog-c**p meadow or the roundabout to widen this footway enough that there’s little or no conflict between bikes and pedestrians.

  5. The on-line survey which needs to be completed by 15th December, noon, does not provide any opportunity to respond “none of the above”
    This very point has been raised by the local councillor to Sustrans and by Sustrans’ own admission the wording on their survey needed to be modified.
    Why then has nothing been done to rectify this?
    The survey deliberately prevents any concerned resident to respond accurately. Shameful, Sustrans.

  6. environmentlambeth says:

    Thank you for your comments. Your feedback has been logged.

    Please also complete our online survey to help us with working up one design for consultation. Let us know which features you would like to see go into the consultation design by selecting them. You can also leave a specific comment about any of the features. There is no minimum or maximum number of selections required by the survey. You can select as many as you like!

    The results of the survey will be available in January.

  7. These designs are poor. They won’t enable any new cycling.

    I cycle up and down Rosendale Road regularly. It’s reasonably safe, reasonably OK, “fine if you keep your wits about you” as Boris Johnson once said.

    However, it’s far too busy to even think about using it with my kids. Which is a shame, as there’s lovely Brockwell Park at the other end of the road, a perfect distance for them to cycle to and from (we live in Crystal Palace). And there’s the Herne Hill Velodrome and Dulwich Park just off the Quietway route too.

    Rosendale Road is a busy, noisy, traffic dominated street, and the plans do nothing to change that. So please, please, please consider a segregated cycle facility on this road, giving youngsters and oldsters on their bikes a safe space away from traffic.

    Yes, it’ll probably be narrower than the specification TfL want for their Superhighways. That’s fine, there’s nothing like Superhighway numbers or speeds of cyclists here. Yes, you might even have to move some parking bays or take out a tree or three.

    But surely that is better than spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on a “cycle route” which will not enable any new cycling?

    Either people can deal with this road as it is,or they can’t. The proposed designs are too weak to make any difference to this. Don’t call it a cycle route if it’s not good enough for 8 year olds and 80 year olds: it’s just a road.

    • Yes, you are right, it is just a road, one which the residents enjoy and make their home on. Trees, parking, make for the character of the Rosendale Rd. on which we live. Easy for you to say, take them away, you don’t live here.
      By the way, do you regularly cycle up and down Gypsy Hill Rd. to and from Crystal Palace?

  8. Yes, it is just a road, but to all who live on it the trees and auto parking are part of its character. Fine for you to suggest the trees and auto parking are removed, you don’t live here.
    Do you take 8 to 80s up and down Gypsy Hill Rd. on your way to and from Crystal Palace? In the night, in the rain?
    Put the cycle-way where it should be Dulwich Wood Rd, to College Rd. to Dulwich Village to Calton Rd.
    Turney and Rosendale Roads are thoughtless alternatives to what the safest cycle-way ought to have been.

  9. I agree that College Road is the obvious route up to Crystal Palace and have said so in the survey. It is more direct, traffic is already reduced due to the toll gate, and cycle paths already exist adjacent to the pavement where they should be. Parking is not an issue on the upper section. It is mystifying to me why College Road is not being considered.
    I live in Lovelace Road so have also looked specifically at the plans for Lovelace Road / Rosendale Road junction. The width of Rosendale Road here is about 11.3m. The plans appear to show linear parking, so allowing 1.8m each side for this, and 2m each side for the cycle lanes, this leaves only 3.7m for a two-way road, clearly not enough. Cyclists would be sandwiched between parked vehicles and vehicles trying to edge past each other. They would have to intrude on the cycle lanes to do this, particularly vans or lorries. Let alone cars pulling across the cycle lane to get to the parking. The plans are ill conceived – the intention is to provide extra safety for cyclists but they would achieve the opposite.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: