Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale

[legalalien]

According to this http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1685800/1574294730/name/KickStands_July+1+2014+Briefing+note.doc, southwark officers, after a two day briefing with a cycling consultancy, now embrace the idea of trialling things on a temporary basis (language a bit unfortunate, it sounds as though some sort of "thought reform" process has gone on).So before committing lots of cash, why not trial the no right turn ban using an experimental traffic order? And then we can see what traffic chaos may or may not ensue?

[Duvaller]

At the meeting on Saturday, several people asked repeatedly where the NRT feature came from as previous studies did not feature it. But answer came there none from Messrs Waring or Simmons.

Tim Waring looked decidedly sheepish on the issue and, given that he went on later to extoll the successes of NRTs at other junctions, one doesnt need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out - given the commitment that Sustrans has towards cycling.

Duvaller

[Zebedee Tring]

In view of the failure of Tim Warin and Cllr Simmons to spell out where the no right turn idea came from, it may be necessary to do a Jeremy Paxman at the Dulwich Community Council meeting and ask the same question about this until an answer is forthcoming.

[bawdy-nan]

I'm not sure it really matters does it? The idea to trial anything before commitment in order to get a proper idea of any implications for other junctions and streets, which the councillors seemed to want to push hard for, seems very sensible.

[Zebedee Tring]

But before any decision were made to have a trial of the no right turn proposal (a decision to which I would be opposed), we need to know where the NRT idea came from in the first place and whether any evidence was collated to support the proposal BEFORE the idea was actually floated.

[Jennys]

I suspect a trial would just be the thin end of the wedge.

[tomdhu]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> According to this

> http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1685800/1574294730/na

> me/KickStands_July+1+2014+Briefing+note.doc,

> southwark officers, after a two day briefing with

> a cycling consultancy, now embrace the idea of

> trialling things on a temporary basis (language a

> bit unfortunate, it sounds as though some sort of

> "thought reform" process has gone on).So before

> committing lots of cash, why not trial the no

> right turn ban using an experimental traffic

> order? And then we can see what traffic chaos may

> or may not ensue?

So Southwark have to use Danish and Dutch cycling consultants to tell them how it's done. Whatever next?

Tom

[Tessmo]

Surely you don't do a trial of a major traffic change without at least some attempt to model it first? It doesn't matter whether the change is temporary or permanent if you haven't considered the potential implications for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in the wider area. So far Southwark Council has put out for public consultation an option that's about as evidence-based as a fairy tale. Why? Time to listen to the local community and come up with a proposal based on facts, not fantasy.

[tomdhu]

As a regular cyclist and one of the earliest contributors to this thread, I have recently spent time studying the accident statistics and observing traffic at the junction. What I have found is:-

1. There are no records of accidents involving injury to pedestrians during the last nine years.

2. There have been only 2 minor accidents involving cyclists.

3. There was one minor accident involving a motorcyclist.

4. The peak cycling traffic, as expected, conforms to morning and evening rush hours.

5. Circa 15% of the morning cyclists cross EDG from Townley going over to Greendale. Most cyclists go straight through along EDG. 15% of the afternoon cyclists cross from Greendale into Townley.

6. Only cyclists coming from Greendale into Townley are at minor risk from traffic turning right out of Townley and the vast majority of cycle traffic in this direction only occurs in the late afternoon.

7. The junction is only busy on school days at Alleyns and Jags - about 175 days per year.

Considering that there has been only 2 minor incidents involving cyclists in the last 9 years it just seems nonsensical to ban the right turn on a 24/7 basis for a miniscule risk that something might happen to limited number of cyclists during a period of about 1 hour every day on only 175 days out of 365.

It just looks like over-reaction to a "problem" that actually doesn't exist.

Tom

Edited for additional data

[first mate]

Or safety and cyclists are being used as a front for changes wanted by the council for some other reason. It is not so long ago that safety was offered as a spurious and unsubstantiated reason for changes around Northcross rd.

[mockingbird]

17th Jan Dulwich Safe Routes meeting to talk about the benefits of the current proposal for the Townley junction was well attended. Noticeable by their absence, were the missing supporters of the Safer Routes to School group and also the Chair of DSR, which was a surprise. In fact there would have been almost no-one at the meeting unless it had been drawn to the attention of residents. Residents from roads all around the junction did turn up on force.

Tim Warins was woefully exposed by his inexperience of handling such an event and DSR should reflect on their decision to put him in such a position. He had come armed with a pointless Powerpoint presentation which did not deal with the issue of the proposal and how it had come to include the RHT ban. He is clearly used to talking to an audience of school children and out of his depth beyond that. His Sustrans colleague sat quietly. As Sustrans are the appointed delivery partner for the Quietways and Cycling Superhighways perhaps he will be advocating from now on that communities have complex dynamics and need to be involved in plans that affect them? Pigs may fly.

Cllr Andy Simmons somehow ended up chairing this event and did a good job as it would have been shambolic otherwise. He too did not want to be pressed on the question about how the RHT ban had come to be introduced. In the end he said that he understood that it came down to the act of a single Southwark official ? but said no more than that. The question does need to be answered.

Alastair Hanton, the Chair of the Transport subcommittee for the Dulwich Society said not a single word. So the ?voice? of the Dulwich Society, who have been a consultee according to Southwark, failed to speak. He did of course manage to network with the Councillors afterwards but that?s no surprise.

Helen Hayes made a composed summary and stated that this consultation had been managed poorly. In her statements, she seemed to be advocating the changes and she introduced the suggestion of a ?pilot?. This fell on deaf ears and a rumble echoed around the room. Helen may not be showing herself to be a great listener. Perhaps she too is trying to push this right hand turn ban, as she talked about the funding being carried over to 2015/16 (which means April 2015-Mar 2016 in government funding terms).

Helen and Andy made promises about the visibility of future consultations and making them meaningful, including anything further on Townley and also the Quietways.

Andy wrapped up by positioning the 28th Jan Dulwich Community Council meeting as one where Southwark Council will show that it now understands the lack of support for the RHT ban and the need for credible consultations.

Has this consultation created a tsunami of discontent that Southwark have not yet spotted is heading their way and about to engulf them?

[BrandNewGuy]

As others have suggested, we should be very suspicious of 'trials' and 'pilots'. We had exactly the same thing with the proposed CPZ. When the council realised the degree of reiststance, their last throw of the dice was proposing a CPZ for a trial period. I asked them the simple question: what are the criteria for the trial, how will it be measured and what would constitute success or failure? They had no answer, which showed that they were simply relying on apathy once the CPZ had been in place for a period of time. They clearly had no intention of allowing the trial to 'fail'. Same with these proposals.

[Duvaller]

Well said Mockingbird.

There was a distinct odour of duplicity emanating from certain Councillors. There was a distinct reluctance by them Councillors to take on board what we, the chattering classes, were saying about the NRT.

Just a small point - I seem to recall that Alastair Hanton did make an inconsequential comment towards the end which was amazing considering his position and the fact that I know that many, many Dulwich Society members expressed their opposition to the NRT directly to the Society in the hope of getting some leverage.

It's classic case of "political" funding looking for a project that will look good on paper. So millions of pounds are entrusted to organisations like Sustrans with the Tim Warins of this world whose main day job is teaching children how to ride their bikes.

[tomdhu]

The Council propose spending ?220,000 to "improve the safety" of the Townley Rd/EDG junction.

It has had 3 minor accidents there in the last 9 years. Compare this with the junction of E.D. Grove/Red Post hill/Village where there has been 19 accidents during the same period - several of which have been serious.

And now they want to divert even more traffic through the E.D. Grove/Red Post hill/Village junction!

Tom

[Zebedee Tring]

Wearing my cynic's hat, perhaps it would be worth reminding certain Councillors that this is a General Election year and that this issue might affect the way numerous local people will vote.

Cllr Simmons said that he understood that the decision to introduce the right turn ban came down to the act of a single Southwark official. I wonder whether the guilty man/woman will be named and whether they will be present at the 28 Jan meeting to justify their stance.

[Green Goose]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Cllr Simmons said that he understood that the

> decision to introduce the right turn ban came down

> to the act of a single Southwark official. I

> wonder whether the guilty man/woman will be named

> and whether they will be present at the 28 Jan

> meeting to justify their stance.

Why not submit a FOI request for an answer or even better ask for:-

1.Minutes of all the council meetings on the issue?

2.Email exchanges between Sustrans and the Council

3.Copy docos sent by Southwark Cyclists to Southwark on this issue

[EastDulwichite]

Biscuit making takes on a whole new meaning

See attached photo

[@Woodwarde]

Green Goose said:

>>>Why not submit a FOI request for an answer or even better ask for:-

1.Minutes of all the council meetings on the issue?

2.Email exchanges between Sustrans and the Council

3.Copy docos sent by Southwark Cyclists to Southwark on this issue

I put an FOI request in for this internal correspondence in November. My request was refused and the reason given was that the information I had requested was on the Consultation website. I have referred it for internal review (the next stage of escalation challenging why the information has not been supplied).

I am interested to know if anyone else has submitted an FOI and the outcome. PM me if you prefer.

[bawdy-nan]

My understanding of what Helen Hayes said was that there was no modelling done for the proposed ban on the right turn and that this wasn't acceptable. In terms of trials she cited the relatively recent example of road changes at Paxton Green where the council proposed some changes, local residents anticipated huge problems, the council were persuaded to trial their proposals, the residents were proved right and the council changed the plans, the resulting changes being safer for cyclist and pedestrians (again this is near two schools) but not causing the knock on detrimental effects correctly anticipated by residents.

In this case many of the problems with the proposed no right turn: u-turns in Greendale, increased dangerous traffic at nearby junctions also near schools, rat running of residential streets etc (all of which I agree are very likely) are worrying because they are likely to increase danger. If the trial proposed by Helen is done and non of these things materialise then that's fine isn't it and if they do then there will be evidence.

Also it feels like we attended very different meetings - Cllr Andy Simmons didn't end up chairing the meeting - he just chaired the meeting; Tim Warin is from Sustrans, the "colleague" was taking minutes and the people for Safe Routes to School and Dulwch Young Cyclists were present and vocal and very clear, I thought that they wanted changes to the junction but had never understood the no right turn to be part of it.

[mockingbird]

in reply to bawdy-nan

Agree, Dulwich Safe Routes presented. But they were the organiser of the meeting. Notifications were emailed to the DSR email list as far as I am aware but perhaps 2 or 3 turned up. Local residents turned up in great numbers having been notified by other parties, not DSR. DSR make their views clear anyway - they state these clearly on their website. I was waiting to hear what parents working with DSR had to say about the proposal.

Agree with your recall that DSR said they did not know that the RHT ban was part of the bid (Tim says the same) but actually the DSR website does say they support it.

Tim says of himself that he has been working in the area for just over a year and although originally funded by TfL, this year his role is funded by Southwark. He also works with local residents, PTA?s and the Safe Routes to School group. I presume that Southwark pay Sustrans, who in turn pay Tim as the Southwark Bike-It officer. Some of the ?285k funding win was allocated to this.

[legalalien]

Don't get me wrong - I don't think a trial is a great idea, but given Southwark Council seem to have been taken over by a vociferous cycle lobby I have some real doubts about the integrity of the process. Judicial review proceedings are extremely expensive - those in power seem to have publicly bought into the idea of trials - so it might pragmatically be a least worst option.

Given the extensive traffic jams in Calton Ave / woodwarde ave/ the village in the last week, I did wonder whether the council were conducting a trial already. Good luck to anyone who tries to rat run those routes - or gilkes crescent if the massive building programme at the audi site goes ahead.....

[Duvaller]

Yes, without doubt Dulwich Safe Routes have been totally duplicitous in several areas but especially on the issue of No Right Turn. Here's the evidence:-

On 8th Dec 2014 on their web site they responded to a query with...

""Hello Southwark cyclist and local resident,

We didn't design the process but want to try to work positively and collaboratively. We didn't know about the banned right proposal and hadn't seen the junction plans before they went out for consultation either.""

Here's the link....

http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/east-dulwich-grovetownley-rdgreen-dale.html

However, two weeks earlier on 25th Novenber, they said..

? We support junction improvements for the following reasons:

?

? Banning the right turn for vehicles would allow bikes to get across safely from Green Dale to Townley Rd without cars turning across their path. Near misses are common here, as many drivers coming from Townley Road think they have priority, or do not notice cyclists coming from Green Dale (which is a no through road for motor traffic, but leads to a popular quiet walking/cycling route up to Denmark Hill/ Camberwell and beyond).

Here's the link..

http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/a-breath-of-fresh-air.html

Even at Saturday's meeting that rather over-animated female from SRS said they didn't know about the NRT until a few days ago. What bollocks!

It's all so bloody incestuous. SRS and Sustrans are joined at the hip and Sustrans is a contractor to Southwark.

SRS convened Saturday's meeting at St Barnabas Hall in cynical attempt to let local residents blow off steam. That meeting has no formal status in the process.

The only meeting that carries any weight is DULWICH COMMUNITY COUNCIL meeting Wednesday 28 January at 7pm in the Baptist Church, Half Moon Lane, SE24 9HU.

If you object to the ban on the right turn, please turn up (in strength and with a loud voice) on the 28th and take these people to task?

Duvaller

[Zebedee Tring]

I thought that the "rather over-animated female from SRS" was protesting her lack of knowledge of the NRT too much. Now what Duvaller says about this makes sense.

[Duvaller]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

>

> I thought that the "rather over-animated female

> from SRS" was protesting her lack of knowledge of

> the NRT too much. Now what Duvaller says about

> this makes sense.

Damned right! My view was - "Me thinks she duth protest too much..."

What was her name?

[fazer71]

Just seen the flyer through my letter box.

Looks like madness.

The usual Southwark staff trying to keep themselves busy and in a job whilst making Southwark residents lives a misery.