Villager

This area is crying out for a mast as seen from http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/search. Th proposed mast location is at the centre of the void. http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/masts1_zps3prfvxg2.jpg

Super! Yes please. Can't wait to get a decent signal at last.

Great Expectations? The Waiting Game?

Let me start by saying I am opposed to 8A also. But to get a better handle on Southwark's thinking, one should read Wiki's page on "Scramble" junctions. V. interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble Key points are:- 1. They slow down traffic and produce tailbacks. 2. They need wide pavements (to store pedestrians) to work diagonally.

James, Your actual words above were ....""I've seen peer reviewed papers suggesting only a fifth are actually reported"" None of the links you provided say anything that remotely supports what you said. Not one. Villager

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The trouble with solely basing highway safety > improvements on reported crashes is significant > number of crashes that involve injury are not > reported. They're treated by hospitals and that's > it. We learn nothing. For slight injuries from > memory I've seen peer reviewed papers suggesting > only a fifth are actually reported. With random > probability waiting until some is killed or > seriously injured often would mean fixing a > location making safer when its unlikely to have a > crash for some considerable time even decades. The > research even found under reporting of death on > highways. > James, What you said here is pure speculation. Unless you can quote actual facts and identify the so-called "peer reviewed papers", what you have said is meaningless and counter productive. Let us have FACTS, not perceptions. I live very close to the junction. I cycle or walk across it every single day and I can assure you it is not unsafe. I have never seen an accident there in 20 years. You also said.. > >My understanding is that such an assessment has been made hence why TfL are willing to fund changes. > The reality is that Boris has given TFL as massive allocation to promote cycling. TFL cannot find enough locations where the money can be spent and so they have a massive underspend of ?38Million. I have facts so I will give you my source :- http://leftfootforward.org/2014/01/boriss-150m-cycling-underspend/ The sad reality is that anybody who submits a half-assed proposal to TFL (supported by SRS and a bunch of cylcists), will get funds thrown at them. Southwark Councillors were so keen to tap into this money that they came up with the proposal which featured the infamous No Right Turn -irrespective of its knock-on effects. We now have another illogical and hastily cobbled together scheme with massive pavement build-outs, tight turns and a reduction in the vehicle lanes -with the result that the tail-backs are going to get much worse. Not to mention the increased pollution from vehicles idling in the queues.

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Villager, > I don't think that Dulwich Community Council must > approve this proposal if it is to go any further. > If DCC has a view, for or against, it will be > taken into account but the decision is for the > Cabinet Member. > MarkT MarkT, That is correct in principle but if the DCC do not support a proposal then it would be highly unlikely that the Cabinet Member would reject/overrule DCC's decision. Mind you, in politics..................

Hopskip, Chris Mascord was the expert appointed by the Southwark Councillors to answer the public's queries and to justify proposal 8a which is being consulted upon. I was led to believe that he was intimately involved in the modelling process. The fact that he was unable to answer detailed questions from yourself and other people indicate that the drop-in session was a failure. May I suggest you write about this to Cllr Andy Simmons who is chair of the Dulwich Community Council which must approve this proposal if it is to go any further. I had a similar experience, as Mr Mascord could not provide me with crucial data also. He could not provide data/info to backup the assumptions, support the modelling analysis or enable an objective appraisal. It further confirms that this proposal is a hastily prepared lash-up designed for political expediency. It insults our intelligence. As such it represents a complete failure of the consultation process. Southwark have another fiasco like the one with the No Right Turn. They should wake up, smell the coffee and put 10B up for consideration.

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Duvaller > I spoke with the Southwark Planner - Christopher > Mascourt - at the meeting in the Village > yesterday. I am confused by the modelling as it > seems to be based upon the volume of traffic able > to turn under the current junction configuration. > If I heard him correctly, then no account has been > made for the longer time it will take for cars or > especially coaches to make the turn - for example > from Townley going left into ED Grove. It will > take longer and so the modelling breaks down > unless they also add on additional time - and this > could be quite significant for the coaches I feel. > In your read of the modelling, has the impact of > the pavement build out been factored in? Hi Hopskip, Your concerns and assumptions are entirely valid. The software used by Chris Mascord is called LinSig and is incapable of taking into account the different times vehicles take to make the turn. The modelling is done on PCUs - Passenger Car Units. A car is one unit. A cyclist is 0.2 units and a big coach could be 3.2 units. LinSig isn't sophisticated enough to take into account the different turning characteristics of the different vehicles - let alone a big vehicle that might have to have two takes at making the turn because of the severe buildouts. It also does not take into account that this junction has many coaches making the turn at peak times. The turn is so tight that a coach turning left from Townley into EDG swings out at the back so that it's rear end overhangs the lane for the oncoming traffic from Greendale so a side swipe collision is likely. What Chris Mascord did with LinSig was an expedient rough and ready in-house concoction that compares very poorly with the study done for Southwark by JMP Associates but "Mascord's Mix" arrived at the "result" Southwark wanted. There's a lot of intrigue behind this issue. Standby for more in due course. Villager

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I attended the public meeting about this I > heard lots of explanations from parents and > residents (especially of Greendale) about why they > felt the junction was dangerous... I was at the same meeting too and I cannot recall anyone explaining why it was dangerous. Also, your view is not supported by statistics. In 9 years there has been only 3 minor incidents. None involving pedestrians. No fatalities. No recorded injuries. The junction at Dulwich Village/Calton/Turney Rd has four times the number of incidents. That's where the money should go. > Secondly, isn't the money coming from outside the > borough? ie, it isn't a Southwark overspend. I > think the mayoral budget for cycling improvements > is hugely under-spent in any case, although I > don't know if this is the same pot. Why waste money (wherever it comes from) when it isn't needed here. If you had a spare ?1 million in cash of your own money to spend it on safety, would you spend it here? I think not. > > I am surprised by the vehement opposition to this > new proposal. I thought I must have missed > something. I'm afraid you did. The money "that came from outside the Borough" originally came from taxpayer's pockets! > > I wondered if it were being made on party > political grounds but the mix of mayoral and > southwark impetus and cash here would suggest > not. Your suggestion is correct. It is the principle of wasting money that came from hard working taxpayers that went into pot that should be spent where it does the most good. > I'm slightly baffled. I hope this has helped to clarify matters

It is reported in the Dulwich Society newsletter that Southwark Council have confirmed that the proposed "Southwark Spine" cycle route through Dulwich Park has been withdrawn, after stiff opposition. That's good news for residents in Eynella who were not consulted on the Townley Road proposal but it could mean that the cyclists will have to cut through the Calton Ave/Dulwich Village/Turney Road junction. Now, that is a junction that needs urgent reworking from a safety aspect as it has 4.5 times the number of accidents over the last 9 years compared to the Townley Rd/E.D.G. junction. Tom

Professor Friedman also made similar observations and came to the conclusion that there were "4 Ways Of Spending" viz... 1) Spend your own money on yourself. 2) Spend your own money on somebody else. 3) Spend somebody else?s money on yourself. 4) Spend somebody else?s money on somebody else. He concluded that 4th way of spending is the worst way of spending. The Townley Road project is a classic case of No. 4

Reminds me of Maggie T's observation that "Socialists always run out of other people's money".

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sustrans is the sustainable transport charity who > speak for cyclists, walkers and public transport. > > Tfl has given them the task of delivering the > Quietways in conjunction with each borough. Tim Warin is employed by Sustrans whose main activity is promoting cycling. Just look at this search:- https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB511GB511&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=%22tim+warin%22+sustrans The meeting today was a political ploy whereby they can say they consulted the people of Dulwich and then put any spin on it they want.

@Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I will not be surprised if all the roads that > should have been consulted have not been. I think > the identification of roads to mail is not always > well thought through by the planners. They don't > know the area. I asked Southwark under a FOI request, 5 weeks ago, ss to which residences they consulted. They have have not responded. So much for FOI. It's a stitch up.

@Woodwarde Wrote: > 1. the first is the statistics and detail on the > Interactive map which of course will be populated > largely by cyclists due to the limited visibility > of the Consultation by Southwark; > Stats today, 12th Jan on the Interactive map are > as follows: > ? 87 people signed up > ? 380 map comments > ? 714 people agree > ? 37 people disagree There is no credibility whatsoever in these statistics or with Southwark's survey process as any individual can make multiple submissions to these surveys. Hence a cycling enthusiast with nothing better to do can spend all day making positive submissions. It is a complete dog's dinner.

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I pity Gilkes crescent And Gt. Spillmans And all Calton Ave, And all Dulwich Village, Plus all No 37 bus users and other drivers on East Dulwich Grove.

> > The two traffic lanes will come down to one only > because they are planning a dedicated cycling > lane. This, plus the build-outs, means there's > only room for one lane. Hence eastbound traffic on > EDG will be impeded by vehicles turning right. > The implications are enormous as the tailbacks in > both directions will be horrendous. They are bad > enough between 8:00-9:30 and again from > 3:15-17:30. Just imagine! > > Tom As a daily user of the 37 bus this will be HORRENDOUS! Also the school buses will be affected and kids will be late for school and later getting home. Sadly, my research shows that this proposal is a result of a small but very effective cyclists lobby group who have regular meeting with the Council. The Council have been unduly influenced by them and it is to the detriment of all the other users. It's about time the silent majority made their views felt.

James, Can you tell us briefly why virtually all the Councils road works e.g. pavement widening, traffic calming measures, speed bumps etc etc is awarded to Conway. Why do we never see such works going out to open tender? Why does the Council provide Conway with an office within the Council building? Gertrude

Why is it that this type of work always goes to Conway and why does it never appear to go out to open tender???????????

I'm an immigrant and it may surprise some, but I will be voting for UKIP again this time. I am fed up with the the amount of money we have to contribute to Europe - approx a net ?55 Million every day! I also dislike the way that the European Court can over-rule the decisions of our courts. I am fed up with the electorate being taken for mugs by the main stream political parties and how the politicians of all persuasions are out to feather their own nests. On the rare occasion when one is caught fiddling, they get put in purdah for a year or so and then they get back on to the gravy train again. Some of our friends who dont like UKIP will vote for some fringe party or spoil their ballot papers. Most are motivated by the need to give the established career political charlatans a reality check.

Voting for the Museum of the Year photography competition has now opened. Out of all the Horniman entries, the Art Fund selected a jellyfish image by Oliver Hine to represent us in the final shortlist so please show your support and vote for the Horniman's jelly fish picture. http://www.artfund.org/news/poll/museum-of-the-year-photography-competition

We can hear it over in East Dulwich Grove! I thought it was my over-sensitive hearing but now I will wander round thereabouts and see where the barking is coming from. I hear it most frequently between 5pm and 9pm.

> So far, it doesn't look much like there is support > from residents for a formal residents group, but > maybe in the future the need might arise. Maybe > numbers 48 and 50, which posted the recent flyer > through our doors about the Hornimann might want > to get behind one? Does anyone know them? A well known (and recently) ex-political spinner lives in extremely close proximity to those locations. It is understood that his (previous) tabloid journalistic skills were used to craft the wording in these flyers. 'Nuf said?

Hi E.D. I am reasonably new to the area and am putting together a business plan for opening a lap-dancing and massage club - preferrably along Lordship Lane or Grove Vale. How do you feel about this? With ED's young and progressive demographic do you think it would be well supported and accepted by the majority? Please let me have your feedback. It would be very much appreciated whether it's good or bad . Vasili