Politics are not fit for the purpose for which they are desinged.
Stop the rat run
Pocket parks on Emsworth & maybe Faygate
Cycle parks at bottom
No through rd
Urban hedge row ,, Pic
Stop rat runs
Possibly no access through Hillside/Palace rd Faygate and Hailsham?
Definitely stop palace Rd/Hillside Rd to Downton Ave rat run.
Rain Garden to stop run off water flooding the High road. SUDS.
Noise: greening soaks up noise, pollution and supports our dwindling wild life.
Remove Humps as the won’t be necessary if no through road.
Play Space for children
Quiet leafy spaces for calm contemplation.
Benches in Parks
Emsworth St and Barhill turn into pocket park. No parking.
Parks can be community run.
Gates on 47 streatham hill. To stop constant noise and night time shenanigans.
Stop incomers parking here to use buses & trains but improve cycle parking for the same.
Section 106 for pocket park?
(Hillside garden Park/nature park)
Flood Prevention ( SUDs)
Car Share parking spaces
Create SAFE space for cyclists passing Streatham hill station going north.
* The UK ranks mid-table for many of the subjective and objective wellbeing indicators used in international surveys.
With the problems Climate Change and air pollution it about time to re think our communities design.
Undoubtably lots will not like these suggestions and it will meet great resistance but unless we actively change the way we live there won’t be a chance of a reasonable life on this planet
We have become dependant upon the car which has insinuated itself into every part of our lives and every road. If we don’t address these basic assumptions we don’t stand a chance.
We have done so much harm to our environment that even if we stopped right now, we would have a major disaster on our hands.
We have needed a carbon negative economy yesterday.
The article lists the five biggest objections to creating public, pedestrian space where cars used to dominate. It also gives advice on how to address these fears.
1. It will attract vagabonds. Not really, The Plaza Perspective claims. While there may be a few more homeless people visiting the area (as is their right), all kinds of other people will also make use of the new space. Once a new public space has been taken into use, ask the police to initially increase their patrols. Also make sure the necessary contact numbers are put up for people to report inappropriate behaviour.
2. The traffic will be terrible. Nope. As soon as regular users have established new routes, the traffic will return to equilibrium. An international study looking at 60 cases where streets were narrowed or removed, found that traffic actually got less – on average 20% of the traffic that used to use those streets, adjust their patterns significantly and make use of other routes. To ease the teething problems, make sure the signage is clearly visible. Also, do not increase available parking in the area as parking creates traffic.
3. The physically infirm will suffer. Not true. Older people and those with physical disabilities love public space, as it allows them to meet and interact with others more easily. Add a few extra disability parking spaces.
4. It will harm business. Not at all. At pedestrian pace, it is much easier to notice things in shop windows. Think of famous streets such as Las Ramblas in Barcelona – also a prime business address! Give access to goods vehicles early in the morning and accommodate merchants by allocating a number of merchant-only parking spaces close-by.
5. Pedestrianised streets failed in the past. The article tells of about 200 pedestrianised spaces that were created between the 1950s and 1970s in the US. By 2000, all but 15 were returned for use by motor vehicles. But before criticizing the concept of pedestrianised space, first look at the way in which these 200 odd examples were implemented. Most were created in areas where traffic – of any kind – was growing less. If there is no reason for people to visit, why should they bother? The revival of so many of our inner cities, is ideal to introduce public, pedestrianised space as there are people using the areas again.
When introducing new pedestrianised spaces, always remember to involve as many parties as possible – local business owners, residents, councillors and members of the public. By being inclusive, success is as good as guaranteed.
In his introduction to a book on Roadside planting (Country Life, 1930) the Chief Engineer for the Ministry of Transport’s Roads Department (C.H. Bressey) wrote that ‘The services which the Roads Beautifying Association is in a position to render… will be more and more widely sought, with results that will add immeasurably to the pleasure of road users’. The book’s authors state that ‘ We have got to remember that at the moment we have a glorious opportunity, which will not recur in the future as far as we can see, of planting ht roads of England on a comprehensive scale, and, therefore, it behoves us to hand down to posterity a scheme which shows that at any rate someone at this date did take sufficient interst to think out beautiful ways of planting, and not just go in in the same rule-of-thumb method as in the past.’
William Jackson Bean (1863-1947) Curator, Kew Gardens William Dallimore (1871-1959), also of Kew, and Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (1882-1942) are named contributors to the book. With regard to planting policy, they mention the theory that ‘only trees which are indigenous to the British soil should be planted’ but evidently favoured the alternative idea that ‘it is perfectly good taste to make use of trees and shrubs, no matter what the country of their origin, provided they grow well under the conditions to which they are subjected’
Car free towns, cities and regions
Marktplatz in Karlsruhe, Germany, coexists with a tramline.
A car-free zone is different from a typical pedestrian zone, in that it implies a development largely predicated on modes of transport other than the car. A pedestrian zone may be much more limited in scope, for example a single square or street being for pedestrians, but largely serviced by cars.
A number of towns and cities in Europe have never allowed motor vehicles. archetypal examples are:
* Venice, which occupies many islands in a lagoon, divided by and accessed from canals. The city has been car-free for more than three decades. Motor traffic stops at the car park at the head of the viaduct from the mainland, and water transport or walking takes over from there. However, motor vehicles are allowed on the nearby Lido.
* Zermatt in the Swiss Alps, which most visitors reach by a cog railway
Other examples are:
* Cinque Terre in Italy
* Ghent in Belgium, one of the largest car-free areas in Europe
* The Old Town of Rhodes, where many, if not most, of the streets are too steep and/or narrow for car traffic.
* Mount Athos, an autonomous monastic state under the sovereignty of Greece, does not permit automobiles on its territory. Trucks and work-related vehicles only are in use there.
* The medieval city of Mdina in Malta does not allow automobiles past the city walls. It is known as the "Silent City" because of the absence of motor traffic in the city.
* Sark, an island in the English Channel, is a car-free zone where only bicycles, carriages and tractors are used as transportation.
To assist with transport from the car parks in at the edge of car-free cities, there are often bus stations, bicycle sharing stations, and the like.
The term car-free development implies a physical change: either new building or changes to an existing built area.
Melia et al. (2010) define car-free developments as residential or mixed use developments which:
* Normally provide a traffic-free immediate environment, and
* Offer no parking or limited parking separated from the residence, and
* Are designed to enable residents to live without owning a car.
This definition (which they distinguish from the more common "low car development") is based mainly on experience in North West Europe, where the movement for car-free development began. Within this definition, three types are identified:
* Vauban model
* Limited Access model
* Pedestrianised centres with residential population
Knez Mihailova pedestrian zone at night with New Year decoration in Belgrade, Serbia
Limited Access type
The more common form of carfree development involves some sort of physical barrier, which prevents motor vehicles from penetrating into a car-free interior. Melia et al. describe this as the "Limited Access" type. In some cases, such as Stellwerk 60 in Cologne, there is a removable barrier, controlled by a residents' organisation. In others such as Waterwijk (Amsterdam), vehicular access is only available from the exterior.[clarification needed]
The city centre of Jyväskylä in Finland is pedestrianised.
Whereas the first two models apply to newly-built car-free developments, most pedestrianised city, town and district centres have been retro-fitted. Pedestrianised centres may be considered car-free developments where they include a significant number of residents, mostly without cars, due to new residential development within them, or because they already included dwellings when they were pedestrianised. The largest example in Europe is Groningen, with a city centre population of 16,500.
Characteristics and benefits of carfree developments
Several studies have been carried out on European carfree developments. The most comprehensive was conducted in 2000 by Jan Scheurer. Other more recent studies have been made of specific car-free areas such as Vienna's Floridsdorf car-free development.
Characteristics of car-free developments:
* Very low levels of car use, resulting in much less traffic on surrounding roads
* High rates of walking and cycling
* More independent movement and active play for children
* Less land taken by parking and roads, so more available for green or social space
The main benefits found for car-free developments:
* Low atmospheric emissions
* Low road accident rates
* Better built environment conditions[clarification needed]
* Encouragement of active modes.[clarification needed]
The main problems related to parking management. Where parking is not controlled in the surrounding area, this often results in complaints from neighbours about overspill parking.
King’s College London Air website has made a great contribution to surveying and analysing London’s air pollution problems but hangs up its gloves when faced with the question: CAN ANYTHING BE DONE ABOUT THIS? King’s say ‘a long term problem that has not been easy to solve’. Fair enough: they are scientists. Solving the air pollution problem requires the vision and imagination of urban landscape designers. I’ve taken advice from a few of them. London should:
1. Make every street a greener street, with more vegetation, more space for cyclists, more space for pedestrians – and less space for air polluting vehicles
2. Remove on-street car parking in Central London, except for disabled people
3. Increase the level of investment in cycle lanes, between two-fold and ten-fold.
4. Make car-share of electric vehicles the most financially attractive choice in the suburbs
5. Assess a sewerage charge for each dwelling, to encourage green roofs and sustainable drainage in gardens
6. Follow Oslo’s example and set a target for making the Central Business District car free.