Methodology

The area surveyed included most of the north part of Telegraph Hill ward, bounded by (moving clockwise): the A202 (i.e. Queen’s Road); the A2 (i.e. New Cross Road); the railway line from New Cross Gate to Brockley; Endwell Road; Drakefell Road; Gellatly Road; and Lausanne Road. All boundary roads were included in the survey with the exception of the A202 and A2 (as these are main arterial roads). One leaflet was delivered per household insofar as this could be ascertained from looking at the front of each building. Each survey slip included a unique code to be inputted into the vote page. Participants were also required to provide a name and email address.

In total more than 3,000 survey leaflets were distributed and over 320 responses received which represents a more than 10% response rate. This is understood to be very large for surveys of this nature and indicative of the high level of resident engagement on these issues.

Once the survey mailout out itself was complete a small number of responses were removed due to issues such as: repeat codes; incorrect codes; or no code. The removal of these erroneous entries made no significant difference to the overall vote share attributable to each option.

Next steps

We said from the outset that we would abide by the results of our survey and campaign for whatever the outcome indicated. In this case there is an absolute (i.e. over 50%) majority in favour of an LTN, with a whopping near 90% support for some form of action!

Nonetheless we understand there are very strongly held views on both sides, particularly amongst residents on boundary roads who fear the impact an LTN may have. We accordingly plan to proceed cautiously.

We intend to engage constructively with Lewisham Highways to explore possible compromise solutions, including potentially some combination of LTN and traffic calming measures, school streets and/or timed closures.

To help assure the success of any scheme we would advocate the following:

i) Any LTN scheme should be first brought in on a trial basis, maintaining the option to switch to timed restrictions e.g. to fit in with movement of school students, or to suspend the LTN altogether.

ii) Any LTN scheme should be accompanied by significant mitigation measures on the boundary roads.

iii) There needs to be thorough assessment of the likely impact on boundary roads undertaken in advance, accompanied by proper measurement after the introduction of any scheme. This requires detailed traffic volume surveys to be conducted both before and after implementation.

iv) Any scheme should be accompanied by other complementary steps to encourage active travel such as introduction of cycle-friendly measures like secure on-road storage and dedicated cycle lanes, to provision of more seating for pedestrians.

Survey Feedback

Along with the votes we also invited comments, and we received a large number (the majority it is fair to say focussed on the potential LTN scheme).

We have summarised these below along with our initial responses.

“An LTN will displace traffic to boundary roads, especially Drakefell and Gellatly Roads”

These roads undoubtedly suffer significant traffic levels already and the proposed LTN scheme might cause an increase (although conversely an LTN would reduce the number of Telegraph Hill residents having to use those roads). The real questions are: how much additional traffic is likely, can this be mitigated, and how do the overall benefits of an LTN scheme stack up when balanced against any potential downsides?

“The survey was unfair as adverse effects of traffic displacement were not detailed”

We do not believe that the survey was in any way unfair. There was not space on the leaflets to list pros and cons of either scheme, and while the PATH website does mention that traffic calming is expensive and constraints on the Council’s funding mean that any scheme might not be implemented, it also states that a LTN may initially transfer more traffic to the surrounding strategic road network and that additional crossings and other traffic calming measures are needed on those roads.

“What about the junction by Skehans?”

We agree that this junction is dangerous and needs addressing. The layout at the junction of Kitto Road encourages people to cross where they cannot be seen by oncoming cars, which is partially a result of the “chicane” in Gellaty Road. The solutions here are complex and could be addressed as part of discussions around any broader scheme/mitigation plans.

“Why not use speed cameras”

We don’t feel speed cameras are the solution as drivers tend to simply slow down for the cameras and speed up again afterwards, so the effect is limited and localised. Additionally, Telegraph Hill is a conservation area, and the visual impact of speed cameras may raise objections.

“We need increased police enforcement”

We agree that the police should take a more proactive role in enforcing speed. However, this is a London / countrywide issue that is not within our control. Hoping that a change in policing policy will resolve the problems in Telegraph Hill is no justification for not taking action locally.

“Speed humps and vibrations cause damage to buildings” / “Speed humps cause more pollution”

Telegraph Hill is known to have subsidence problems and many residents have commented on issues with houses shaking and even cracking caused by buses hitting speed bumps. It is also known that speed humps cause increased levels of pollution as vehicles slow down and speed up again. This is a complicated area and the impact depends on the exact design of the speed humps and the speed at which vehicles are travelling, but it does generally support our emphasis on incorporating a mix of other traffic calming measures rather than just relying on the current speed humps as at present (which are in any case poorly designed and ineffective). Overall though, although we do care about reducing levels of pollution we feel the number one priority has to be road safety.

“What about access for taxis and delivery drivers affected by an LTN”

It is true that for non-resident vehicles some short journeys may become slightly longer. However, taxis and delivery drivers make up a small minority of journeys through Telegraph Hill. Our estimates suggest that in the worst case a very few journeys could be make up to four minutes longer. Conversely though due to the potential removal of restrictions on Arbuthnot Road, Kitto Road, Sherwin Road and Musgrove Road many of these journeys will also become shorter.

“Disabled people and elderly people will be adversely affected by an LTN”

Our proposed LTN includes ANPR cameras that would allow all residents to pass freely. Additionally, many disabled people use wheelchairs or adapted /bike and trikes where quieter streets are an advantage.

“The proposed LTN scheme benefits the east of Telegraph Hill but not the west.

Although the proposed LTN barriers are located on the east of Telegraph Hill, they effectively block through traffic using the north-west to south-east rat runs that impact the entire area. As a result, we believe all residents of Telegraph Hill would benefit from their implementation.

“Emergency services would be slowed down by an LTN”

Our preferred LTN scheme features ANPR cameras rather than fixed barriers which emergency vehicles could pass through so there would be no impact on response times. The alternative traffic calming scheme might have some impact, but this would be minor and must be balanced on the overall improvements to health and safety of Telegraph Hill residents.

“An LTN won’t have any impact on levels of cycling”

We believe the evidence shows that in general LTNs are hugely beneficial to cyclists. Further unlike other areas of SE London such as Lee Green, routes through Telegraph Hill are largely unconstrained by physical boundaries such as railways and/or rivers (other than the one train line running from New Cross Gate to Brockley) so cyclists do not need to simply stick to the main roads. Cycling infrastructure such as enclosed curbside bike stores are already being installed across Telegraph Hill, but we agree a designated cycle lane would be an interesting proposal to explore further as part of any scheme - ideally with a dedicated crossing for cyclists at the bottom of Jerningham Road linking in with future plans for the broader development of New Cross Gate and the Sainsburys site.

“Road closures should only be for rush hour and certain times of the day”

We are not in principle against this as an option if it can be shown that it would achieve our goals in particular of reducing levels of traffic and improving road safety.