East Dulwich Rd & Peckham Rye junction

[richfish]

I see there was another accident at the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye. The motorcyclist didn't look too badly hurt thankfully. I can't recall how many incidents there have been there this year and yet the Police and Council seem incapable of tackling the problem. I guess the health service just continues to pick up the tab for putting people back together. Madness.

[Peckhampam]

I have never understood why, at this junction so many cars continue crossing against the red light. Especially coming from Nunhead towards Goose Green. It makes it incredibly dnagerous and very difficult to turn right.

[DJKillaQueen]

The council ARE aware this junction is an accident blackspot richfish...one of the worst locally which is why it is part of the coming round of road improvement schemes.

Perhaps if you attended Community Council meetings or any of the other council meetings that allow public attendance you might be better informed instead of assuming the council are doing nothing or unaware.

[ratty]

One of the problems with this junction is that the lights very often (east / west) are green for only 2 or 3 seconds. Hence people try to rush through, jumping lights and injuring people. It is so obvious it hurts!

Every day I see someone jump this light.

[DulwichFox]

Problem has got worse since The No Right Turn policy introduced.

Traffic going straight on travelling faster, and jumps lights.

When you could turn right, traffic was more congested but moving slower.

[Jeremy]

I agree with ratty, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that some signals only stay green for literally a couple of seconds. It frustrates drivers, resulting in dangerous driving.

[DJKillaQueen]

There are numerous problems with this juction as it stands and part of it is the amount of traffic flowing through it at peak hours, part of it is impatient drivers beaking the rules of the road.

Some of the suggestions raised at the last Peckham and Nunhead CC Meeting, where several schemes that will be part of the next round of road improvements were opened to consultation and ideas, included rephasing of lights, using diagonal pedestrian crossings, shortening the East Dulwich Road bus lane and introducing right turn filtering (phased with the lights) and even a roundabout.

[PeckhamRose]

I was there too at the Community Council and can vouch for all of what DJKQ said.

I do also wish that all of you who so regularly in here grumble at the situation would actually go to a council meeting and discuss your fears. They can't ignore all of us.

I am so sorry a biker was injured, and tremble - as I have been involved in many near misses myself simply trying to turn right at traffic lights!

[AcedOut]

It needs filter lights. Period. I've been saying this for a long time now.

[cate]

AcedOut Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It needs filter lights. Period. I've been saying

> this for a long time now.

No s**t Sherlock. You and about a thousand other people.

[richfish]

I am no traffic management or safety expert and I certainly don't feel qualified nor informed to be able contribute to a consultation on the best solution - surely that is why there are experts to do just that job. I don't need to be consulted with on this matter. They just need to identify the solution and get on with implementing it surely. This obsession with consultation seems to me to often be an excuse to delay doing anything.

[tomchance]

For anyone really into their traffic management schemes, road layouts etc. it's the Community Council traffic & transport sub-group tomorrow night (Thurs 4th Nov) from 6.30-8pm in Room D, Southwark Town Hall, Peckham Road.

We talked a bit about this junction last time around, and will be discussing Peckham town centre generally tomorrow evening.

[kford]

A Goose Green-sized roundabout would do the trick. There is room. The centre could be paved with low gutters to allow larger vehicles to negotiate it.

[DJKillaQueen]

There are very good reasons for consultation richfish, mainly because if they don't consult they upset people when implementing seemingly the wrong solution (then to only be further accused of wasting money). It's an important and democratic process. Historically, but for public involvement there would have been no end of destruction and unpopular planning and transport schemes. After all, who better to consult with than those that live there, or use the junction and are best informed to say what the problems are.

Similiarly....have you thought to contact the transport committee directly and express concern? No. You are the first to complain (as the misinformed view of your opening post shows) whilst taking no part in shaping the decisions made by your local conuncil, and expect them to 'by magic' identify problems and solutions.

That junction also comes under TFL remit, which is why the planned improvements are part of the TFL round of annual funding. It's not a straightforward process of the council being able to do as they please, when they please. Nor is it a quick process.... but again, if you took any interest in how your local council works you might have known that.

There's certainly room for a roundabout Kford, although loss of pavement may be opposed.

[AcedOut]

cate - blimey, looks like someone's starting to open their metaphorical door at long last. What did the postman bring for you this morning!!!?

[PeckhamRose]

tomchance thanks for alerting us to the meeting.

I hope to make it but fear I shall be working.

ALL YOU ABOVE who can go to this should go to this!!

Complaining on here does nothing about it.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'll be going....

[tomchance]

Maybe I'm ignorant of some back history, DJKillaQueen, but your posts are really quite aggresive!

richfish, I would encourage you to attend the community council meetings (info here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200137/community_councils) if you want to have your concerns listened to by the people who make the decisions. You could also contact your local councillors. Or, failing that, you could always post your thoughts here inviting people to comment and take your thoughts on board. Now you can be in no doubt that these processes are in place and that they exist with good reason, you might help those of us who are more involved understand your perspective.

[DJKillaQueen]

Anyone that dismisses consultation (he calls it an obsession remember) as a process but then criticises the council for ignorance deserves to be corrected Tom.

Richfish has no interest whatsoever in being involved in any of the above as his subsequent post showed :) and I am merely responding to that.

[richfish]

Jolly good. I would be really grateful for clarification about what knowledge and expertise you have to comment on the relative merits or otherwise of a range of proposed traffic safety schemes and their associated cost-benefit analysis. I certainly know that I am not informed enough to comment on such matters. Neither would I want to feel personally accountable in anyway for determining such a course of action. Personally I am happy to leave it to the experts to implement the best course of action on a problem of this nature based on a study, evidence and best practice. I entirely fail to see what public consultation will add to this process.

By your own admission the Council and Police are indeed aware of this problem. So I am unclear where I appear to be uninformed in this respect. I contacted the Council myself about it several years ago, shortly after the first fatal accident I seem to recall. Yet still nothing has happened. Hence it appears to me that the relevant authorities are indeed incapable of decisive action on this matter. The fact that it is a multi-agency problem is no excuse for inaction in my opinion.

I hold several trusteeships which along with my job makes attending evening meetings very difficult. I do indeed take an active and constructive role in my community but in areas that I feel I have the appropriate skills in.

[Medley]

Well said richfish. I don't see it's necessarily our responsibility to point out the many failings with this junction if the Council knows about them.

P.S. the timings are ridiculously tight for traffic on E Dulwich Road turning right in either direction. Certainly under 3 seconds.

[PeckhamRose]

"P.S. the timings are ridiculously tight for traffic on E Dulwich Road turning right in either direction. Certainly under 3 seconds."

Exactly! That's why it is important for people who agree to go to council meetings to persuade them to improve it.

[DJKillaQueen]

For information, here are the relevant minutes of discussion on this from the Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council Traffic and Transport Sub-Group Meeting, Thursday 2nd September 2010.

6. Update on the Peckham Rye South Scheme. (Simon Phillips (SP) Principal Transport Planner).

SP updated the meeting, stating that a feasibility study looking at the both arms of Peckham Rye on either side of the common has just been completed. In particular, a traffic model has been developed to evaluate possible changes to the junctions with East Dulwich Road. There are a large number of collisions at the 'Kings on the Rye' junction which is also very congested. Possible changes are mainly tweaks to signal timings. It may be possible to implement a diagonal pedestrian crossing at the junction, but this would involve a trade off that might increase wait times at existing crossing points.

Many other schemes within the area had also recently been completed; e.g.:

? Contra flow cycling at northern end of Rye Lane

? Heaton road regeneration scheme

? Nigel Road safety scheme.

SP distributed a map of collisions highlighting that the eastern branch of this junction is a pedal cycle route going to Lewisham and that at peak times around 25% of vehicles on that route are bicycles.

SP highlighted that collisions are mainly due to congestion and poor road user behaviour. Maybe an enforcement and or education programme is necessary.

Residents said that part of the problem was that there was no filter going from East Dulwich turning right onto Peckham Rye and cars coming from Nunhead go through amber causing a cumulative effect. Other residents suggested more stop lines and changing of light phasing and other filters from East Dulwich to Peckham Rye to which SP responded that it might lead to further congestion and has to be passed by TfL, a process which has now become harder than before due to the Mayor?s policy to 'smooth the traffic flow'.

SP also suggested that a diagonal crossing will improve pedestrian amenity, but not necessarily reduce accidents. SP ended saying that the scheme was a 2 yr. project; Provisional phasing is to start this year with a 'gateway' treatment where the road splits. This would involve changes to lane widths etc. made to slow cars down and to improve cycling conditions at the entrance to Peckham Rye (east). Proposals for this year should be confirmed by mid October.

Suggestions: The Chair suggested the possibility of looking at other examples in London to get ideas.

Action: To discuss the proposals for this junction at the next meeting.

SP is Simon Phillips - Principal Transport Planner

[DJKillaQueen]

This junction was discussed tonight again at the CC Transport Sub-Committee meeting.

No works will happen to this junction until next year, because funding won't be available until then and the level of funding will determine what can and can not be done.

I asked about light phasing. That is the remit of TFL. To alter it, the council need to go through a lengthy process with TFL involving surveys and data. It's not something they can do at will. This would also apply to moves to introduce filter lights (for turning right for example).

Also the reason for the short phasing is to accomodate pedestrians crossing equally with traffic. Basically the junction is overloaded so there has to be compromise to keep traffic movement and pedestrians crossing balanced. To lengthen the phases for traffic for example would leave pedestrians waiting too long to cross. Conversely the idea to use diagonal pedestrian crossings would leave traffic waiting too long between pedestrian phases.

From the data, most of the collisions at that junction involve car on car. There is also agreement that drivers breaking rules, for example jumping red lights and turning right where they shouldn't contributes to that. This is something the council can do something about relatively quickly. There is going to be something done to enforce the rules at the junction. How that will happen (CCTV with fines or some kind of monitoring on the ground) hasn't been discussed yet.

[PeckhamRose]

Well done and thanks DJKQ.

TfL monitored that junction, the other PeckhamRye SE22 junction AND the Gowlett Road junction (I think it was that one) a few years ago. They reported at the community council then, too. And heard our concerns.

Before those traffic lights went in you turned right when you could (ie coming from East Dulwich to turn right either up towards Clockhouse SE22 side or up towards Brockley SE15 side of the park), ie. when there was nothing coming from Nunhead.

Now you have a lot less (legal) opportunity to make that right turn. And because there is often so much traffic coming from Nunhead which often itself crosses its own lights, in turn trying to turn right whether it's me on a motorcycle or the 484 bus, the only time we can turn right is after the light has turned red.

It's not right, I am not proud, but there simply should be filter lights there at least.

Still, fining us will make it all better, won't it. I shall email Simon Phillips myself too, since I could not make the meeting.

(DJKQ My meeting was much duller!)