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

[James Barber]

How very bizarre. Cllr Andy Simmons and Cllr Helen Hayes are Labour councillors for College ward. If the meeting was meant to be an offshoot of the Dulwich Community Council then as a local councillor I would be surprised to not be invited.

So it appears this meeting was a Southwark Council meeting where Helen and Andy were representing the Labour led council who are proposing this scheme. Not exactly impartial then. it sounds like they hoped to lance this boil.

Helen and Andy are always saying officers could have done this or that or terrible officers for whatever road scheme is proposed. This whole scheme has gone through many council officers and Labour politicians hands before it was made public or consulted on.

I fear this will push through the NRT. If they withdraw it now they say how much they've been listening. My hunch is they'll suggest further studies blah blah blah after the general election. They can then come back and not be concerned about people voting with this in mind on the 7 May.

Residents need to email Helen Hayes [email protected] ideally copying me as another one of parliamentary candidates saying I will not vote for you IF you push this issue to be decided beyond 7 May or if the scheme includes a NRT from Townley Road.

A couple of hundred people saying that and she'll for once be clear about something and the Labour council will drop that aspect.

[Duvaller]

Thank you for the insight James.

It all makes more sense now as it was quite evident that that certain Councillors were not playing with a straight bat.

I think your idea of every one e-mailing their respective respective Labour Councillor(s) is good. To make it easier for some, I list below the one in the immediate area:-

[email protected] - village ward

[email protected] - College ward

[email protected] - college ward

[email protected] - college ward

[email protected] -East Dulwich

Duvaller

[fazer71]

Ah James I like it.

But when you're dealing with Southwark Turkeys it's a waste of time they will always vote for Christmas.

;)

[rch]

I must say I agree with James (and, no, we haven't spoken about this). I don't want to get political about this, because I hate politics, but I'm not going to sit by and watch this happen to the neighbourhood I have lived in for 30 years.

As a former Village ward cllr for eight years, I know the history of this junction scheme extremely well and I was quite shocked at some of the disinformation that was spoken in reassuring tones to the audience at this meeting (the poor guy sitting next to me had to put up with me muttering corrections out loud throughout the meeting).

One thing that I'm completely clear on is that it's the amazing level of united public outcry that has prevented this scheme from being railroaded through. Everything from the flyers to the biscuits was brilliant.

We absolutely need to stick together from now on in the face of one-size-fits-all policies being dictated from five miles away in Tooley Street.

To this end, I will stress again how important it is that a formal deputation is made at the next DCC meeting on the 28th Jan so that the opposition to this scheme can be formally noted... a deputation request will need to be made today or tomorrow at the latest.

[first mate]

What recourse to those that really cannot make the meeting? Can we add our names to a list that can be presented. beginning to feel that in interests of balance and fairness these meetings should be at weekend to ensure maximum attendence.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Email that it will affect how you vote on 7 May. If enough do that then they will climb down.

If you're normally a labour voter or labour party member then make that clear in your email.

They've cleary radically changed policy before when enough voters make things clear. They were totally asgainst a new secodnary school for years in our area. I met with them and over 500 signed up families and they U-turned like crazy.

We're fortunate this scheme has come forward just before an election they expect to win.

[Zebedee Tring]

In principle I agree with James Barber's idea of an email to Helen Hayes saying that we won't vote for her if she and her colleagues push for this issue to be decided beyond 7 May or if the scheme includes a NRT from Townley Road. However, I think that if we indicate on the email that a copy will be going to JB, this will make it sound like a Lib Dem political stunt and may harden Labour attitudes. In my opinion copies of the email to Helen Hayes should instead go to her Labour colleagues in the Dulwich wards. A copy to JB could be sent separately.

[slarti b]

The scheme being consulted on is Option 7 of the "Technical Note" produced at the Councils request by AECOM Conway in Feb\Mar 2014. However the Traffic Consultants JMP recommended 2 Options in their report of Dec 2012.

Option 5, was a "quick win" costing under ?10k which could be put implemented as a short term solution.

JMP's main recommendation was Option 4 which has the following features\benefits:

- significantly improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists

- includes specific provisions for safety of South bound Greendale cyclists

-has better provision for cyclists on EDG than Option 7

- improves operational efficiency of the junction

- Does NOT require a banned RHT

The JMP report is much more credible and evidence based than "Technical Note" by AECOM Conway used by council to justify their current Option 7.

The JMP report:

- was commissioned by Southwark to investigate improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians

- is prepared by an independent consultancy

- is based on a formal traffic study with proper methodology

- has full LinSig modelling (software for modelling junctions controlled by traffic lights) based on the traffic study

- provides clear recommendations for options(s) to improve safety of the junction

Astonishingly, the AECOM Conway "Technical note" does not meet ANY of these criteria.

The scheme is being funded by TFL. Option 4 is almost certainly the "Shovel ready" scheme mentioned in the Council's application to TFL in July 2013 (I can't be 100% sure because the council are trying to hide it). If so the Council must give reasons why they supported Option 4 in July 2013 but not 6 months later.

Supporters of the Council's Option 7 have characterised anyone who queries the RHT ban as not interested in cycle and pedestrian safety. As a 4\5 day a week cycle commuter with children who walked across that junction for many years this gets me very angry.

Organisations such as Safe Routes to School are blindly supporting Option 7 without questioning the flawed assumptions and ignoring the increased danger at other junctions and local roads. They should instead ask themselves if they are acting in the best interests of their members and the safety of the (much) wider local community.

Option 4 is not perfect. In particular there are no early start lights for cyclists, possibly because they were not legal at the time. But a revised and up-to-date Option 4 would make a much better start point for a proper consultation going forward.

We could then have a sensible scheme to improve safety that is much more likely to attract support across the community. The councillors can even use this as evidence they have listened!

A win-win for everyone!! (edited to remove comment about Sustrans who apparently are not involved with the Quietway)

[bawdy-nan]

On this thread, and at the meeting, one of the alternative proposals, to maximise safety for cyclists coming from Greendale on a major cycle route(and where car drivers are not able to properly and / or aren't aware of this being a crossroads), was that a cycle specific light be installed on Greendale or that the lights be phased to give the Greendale exit a head start.

It was stated, I think, this wouldn't be possible because of TFL objections (they, according to the Cllrs at the meeting, assume that any changes to lights will have an unacceptable impact on traffic flow).

Is this really the case? There are lots of places in London where cycle specific lights are used to great effect. And, of course, it is hard to see how the proposed ban on a right turn wouldn't have a huge impact on traffic flow.

Similarly, on Sustrans website, in relation to the Quietways (a Mayoral initiative) integration with main roads they specifically cite segregation and crossing points as being the means by which cyclists will be assisted.

"where directness demands the Quietway briefly join a main road, full segregation and direct crossing points will be provided, wherever possible, on that stretch. Quietways will be particularly suited to new cyclists."

Whilst I fail to see the benefits of a NRT and, indeed, fear that it would increase the danger at other, already busy junctions (and Greendale itself) for vulnerable road users. I am slightly baffled by the vehement animosity on here shown towards people who want to improve safety for children and young people trying to get to school and people who use bicycles to get around or get to work.

Overall, in terms of impact on traffic flow and congestion, it surely must be the case that getting people out of cars for short (or longer) journeys is going to have a positive effect and improving safety at junctions like these locally is in everybody's interest - car drivers, pedestrians, public transport users alike. And most people will fall into at least 2 or 3 of those categories.

For example, if parents could be persuaded that they didn't "need" to bring their children to school by car and the schools could be persuaded to behave more responsibly with regard to the coach transport they provide that would be a "good" thing surely even if only in terms of reducing congestion.

[bawdy-nan]

Agree with you slartiB; but at the meeting it was stated that Sustrans aren't delivering the Quietway in Southwark but that the counil have opted to do this themselves and, also, I don't get the impression that Safe Routes DO support a right hand turn. From what I could gather at the meeting they have been trying to get safety improvements at that junction for years and years and have themselvs proposed much much much cheaper and simpler options and were advocating them at the meeting. I know that on their blog they are urging qualified support but, as far as I can see, this seems to come from a position of desperation at anything happening there ever. I really don't think they're the bad guys in this.

[slarti b]

@Bawdy Nan

"Green Only" phase for Greendale

Southwark claim to have released all of the documents related to this scheme. AS far as I can see none of the options modelled include a "green only" phase for Greendale so they haven't modelled it. They should have done.

Early Start for cyclists

The early start for cyclists is included in Option 7 so doesn't adversely affect operation of junction. As per my post above, combining an early start with Option 4's proper road markings for cyclists and right turning Townley traffic, will give a safer junction without moving danger elsewhere

Animosity

Don't have time to respond at length. Any answer will features arrogance, naivety, absence of accountability, hidden agendas, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, back room deals, blanket criticism of anyone pointing out flaws etc

[slarti b]

TO bawdy Nan

Messages overlapping, hope it is clear which one I am reply to !

I had a work commitment and couldn't make the Saturday meeting but a couple of things you said surprised me.

- Quietway

Are you sure that Southwark are taking full responsibility for delivering the E&C-CP Quietway? This is not the impression given by TFL web site. Is there confusion between this Quietway and the Southwark spine?

- Safe Routes

Their web site is very clear about their full, unqualified support for the RHT ban.

"We support junction improvements for the following reasons:...Banning the right turn for vehicles would allow bikes to get across safely from Green Dale....". See http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/east-dulwich-grovetownley-rdgreen-dale.html Their email to their supporters was equally clear and unqualified.

So, if they didn't give impression at meeting they supported RHT ban they are at best inconsistent, at worst duplicitous. On the other hand, if they have changed their mind about the RHT ban they should put a statement on their blog\web site announcing this and clearing up the confusion.

[bawdy-nan]

slarti b Wrote:

> > - Quietway

> Are you sure that Southwark are taking full

> responsibility for delivering the E&C-CP Quietway?

> This is not the impression given by TFL web

> site. Is there confusion between this Quietway and

> the Southwark spine?

>

I'm not absolutely sure about this but I'm pretty sure this is what was stated at the meeting. Apparently Sustrans have won the overall contract but local authorities can choose to opt in or out on level of delivery. In the case of Southwark, I think, Sustrans are not delivering.

> So, if they didn't give impression at meeting they

> supported RHT ban they are at best inconsistent,

> at worst duplicitous. On the other hand, if they

> have changed their mind about the RHT ban they

> should put a statement on their blog\web site

> announcing this and clearing up the confusion.

That might be my wishful thinking then ....what I heard at the meeting were a group of people who've been stymied at every turn and who want improvement to safety. They've done really good things throughout the area as far as I can see. I too think they're wrong to support this wholeheartedly, if that's what they're doing, but I like that they exist - maybe you should get involved and help them be more effective in their campaigning and communication - I know they were looking to sign up more people at the meeting ...

[Duvaller]

rch Wrote:

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

> To this end, I will stress again how important it

> is that a formal deputation is made at the next

> DCC meeting on the 28th Jan so that the opposition

> to this scheme can be formally noted... a

> deputation request will need to be made today or

> tomorrow at the latest.

OK Robin, you obviously know what's required and how to do it. Are you going to organise it and what do you need the rest of us to do to assist?

Duvaller

[@Woodwarde]

James Barber wrote..

___________

>>"How very bizarre. Cllr Andy Simmons and Cllr Helen Hayes are Labour councillors for College ward. If the meeting was meant to be an offshoot of the Dulwich Community Council then as a local councillor I would be surprised to not be invited. So it appears this meeting was a Southwark Council meeting where Helen and Andy were representing the Labour led council who are proposing this scheme. Not exactly impartial then. it sounds like they hoped to lance this boil.

Helen and Andy are always saying officers could have done this or that or terrible officers for whatever road scheme is proposed. This whole scheme has gone through many council officers and Labour politicians hands before it was made public or consulted on."

___________

It is now quite clear, and unacceptable to the Dulwich community, that the RHT ban has been introduced unilaterally by Southwark without modelling and based upon an undeclared agenda.

We will ask that Helen Hayes comes to the 28th Jan DCC meeting able to state publically that the RHT ban is finally off the table.

We can then work together as a community to support safety at the junction with one of the many other viable options.

[fazer71]

Is the junction actually broken?

Ie if not why does it require a fix...

Bizarre....

[Duvaller]

Read into it what you may, but there was a team of 5 surveyors at the junction all day today with theodolites etc.

I had a chat with one of the surveyors and he said they were taking accurate measurements so that detailed engineering drawings could be prepared. Asked if this was in relation to proposed changes to the junction, he said that was his understanding.

They did the schematic drawings and graphics ages ago so I ask myself why the rush to go to detailed site drawings at this stage?

Duvaller

[Gabe]

fazer71 -- it's a horrible junction that is an accident waiting to happen, so yeah, it needs fixing

[tomdhu]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi MarkT,

> No, local councillors wont directly be making the

> decision on this junction. But it would be very

> surprising if the cabinet councillor for transport

> went againt a community council making

> recommendations. So de facto we as local

> councillors are most likely to be taking the

> decision.

> great example of this was the proposed controlled

> parking around East dulwich station. The decision

> wasn;t for the Dulwich Community Council to take

> but I requested we were fully consulted at the

> DCC. The DCC recommended it not proceed. And

> despite the cabinet councillor having put forward

> the scheme they rejected it based on the two

> community council's recommendations.

I strongly suggest that all of us who want to keep the Right Turn should read what James Barber wrote above. The Labour bosses in Tooley Street are determined to force this through and so the only way to stop it is to get the Dulwich Community Council to oppose the proposals. However, the DCC comprises 5 labour, 2 LibDems and 2 Conservative members.

There are two ways to do this:-

1. E-mail each Labour Councillor in your ward (with CC to James Barber) telling them that you will not vote for them at the next election.

2. Turn up 'en masse' and be vocal on Wednesday 28 January at 7pm in the Baptist Church, Half Moon Lane, SE24 9HU when the DCC meeting is held.

Because the Tooley Street cadre is pulling the strings, it was evident during the meeting in St Barnabas Hall last Saturday that the Labour Councillors were uneasy and obviously in a difficult position. None of them voiced for keeping the right turn.

So, it's up to us. If we want to keep the right turn we have to apply pressure. Are you up for it?

[BrandNewGuy]

Gabe Wrote:

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

> fazer71 -- it's a horrible junction that is an

> accident waiting to happen, so yeah, it needs

> fixing

The figures show there are other more dangerous junctions in ED and they are not benefiting from over ?200,000. Fix those and don't just throw money at a botched 'solution' because you fear an accident might happen.

[slarti b]

to BNG

Agreed there are more dangerous junctions based on accident records, eg EDG\Dulwich Village, EDG\Gilkes, Townley\Lordship Lane. The proposed RHT ban will send more traffic through all these junctions as well as along Lordship Lane (accident black line) which is why I am so against it.

However, I also agree there is a potential danger to south going cyclists on Greendale. This is largely due to the Council's previous remodelling of the junction, no maintenance of road markings and their refusal to implement any of the low cost improvements of the safety reviews in 2007 and 2012.

JMP's Option 5 combined with a short "Greendale-only" green phase is a cheap,quick solution that would make it much safer for cyclists.

If you have ?250k of TFL money to spend then JMP's Option 4, together with early start lights (and some proper modelling) would make it much safer and nicer to use for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Neither of these options have a RHT ban to displace traffic to dangerous junctions or through residential rat-runs.

Then make sure that JAGS don't mess things up by overrunning Greendale with traffic due to their proposed new car park!

[holymoly]

I am up for it as I think Southwark has no idea how much distrust they have created as a result of their lack of transparency.

There remain unanswered questions about how Townley got pushed out to consultation without modelling in the first place. Had it not been for the enormous effort that has gone in to make Southwark take stock - this would already been in motion.

I had hoped that Southwark would accept that a RHT ban would not work. Instead, Helen Hayes and Andy Simmons ducked the issue and a pilot was suggested.

Even if the brakes went on now, who would believe that this was not temporary, only to come back in some other guise post the election? Nobody frankly, is that gullible.

I think we want to know that this RHT ban can be put to bed for good and that it does not become part of electioneering agendas.

I think Southwark also need to open the box on the 'secret' person at Southwark who made this decision (of course it is actually a collective of people) and what will be done to ensure this is not going to happen all over again. For example with the Cycling Strategy....

[keyhole]

It's so quiet ther now,right now,it's only at school times it's busy,,,,,like other school sites....There is no problem,just some cyclists seem to have no patience!

[fazer71]

Utter twaddle what a complete total waste of OUR money. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BONKERS !

?200,000 down the toilet !

[bawdy-nan]

keyhole Wrote:

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

> It's so quiet ther now,right now,it's only at

> school times it's busy,,,,,like other school

> sites....There is no problem,just some cyclists

> seem to have no patience!

It's not for cyclists coming out of Greendale to have patience as they have right of way. The problem is that car drivers either don't realise this or can't see the cyclists coming properly.