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

[James Barber]

Pleased to see community action has paid off.

Labour have climbed down and now asking council officers to prepare a version of the proposed scheme keeping the RHT from Townley Road and that this is the recommended scheme for approval.

Well done to everyone who has directly applied pressure to Labour councillors. It has worked. Still worth keeping the pressure up to ensure they don't vacilate.

I will be asking any revised scheme includes red light camera for thE Townley Road branch as I think this is crucial for the diagonal crossing proposed under the new scheme to ensure it is safe to children to cross unaided.

[slarti b]

@Wulfhound, some good points I would like to comment on

- Potential danger

Despite the lack of reported accidents I completely agree of potential danger for South bound Greendale cyclists. But I think this can be addressed without a RHT ban which will move the danger elsewhere.

- Support for current scheme

Safe Routes to School(SRS) give inconsistent messages about what they support. Their web site and messaging is very pro the RHT ban but the only person from SRS who spoke at the SRS Open Meeting on Saturday suggested they were unhappy about RHT ban and had been duped by LBS. Sadly they bottled out of addressing concerns and are unable to clear the confusion of what they do and don't support. I suspect they just "want something done" and are not bothered by the details or knock-on effects.

Personally I think the main agenda of cyclists lobby and probably Mark Williams (Cabinet member for transport etc) is to clear the way for proposed Quietway at this junction

- Volume of cycle traffic on Greendale

The traffic survey in JMP report (Covered 10 hours at end Sept 2012) showed 99 cyclists coming south from Greendale into Townley. 14 further cyclists came south from Greendale and turned left [6] or right [8] into EDG. In the same period 1,746 vehicles turned right from Townley into EDG. So, based on that survey Greendale cyclist traffic is low and vastly, vastly outnumbered by the right turning traffic.

LBS have quoted potential of "100's of cyclists an hour" using Greendale due to Quietway ( or maybe Southwark Spine) but these figures are completely speculative, I have tried unsuccessfully to to find evidence based traffic forecasts for the Quietways, do you know of any?

- "Gold plated" Option 7

I do not know who designed Option 7 and, unlike Options 1-6, it is not the result of the published safety reviews. It appeared as an option to be evaluated by AECOM Conway in their LinSig modelling at the request of the Council

I am suspicious as to the underlying agenda of this mysterious design and I would prefer a design by an independent traffic consultancy working to transparent safety and efficiency criteria.

In the absence of a new study I think the best starting point is JMP's recommended Option 4, updated for early start lights and also looking at some kind of Greendale green only phase. Given that the junction is busy for only a very limited period each day I really cant see why something cant be worked out.

[@Woodwarde]

James Barber wrote

>>I will be asking any revised scheme includes red light camera for thE Townley Road branch as I think this is crucial for the diagonal crossing proposed under the new scheme to ensure it is safe to children to cross unaided.

This is strange James - I presume that there will need to be further consultation on any amended scheme? Do you know different?

[spider69]

Green Dale? Hundreds a day in the summer. It's the main lower-traffic cycle route between Dulwich / Upper Norwood / Crystal Palace / Sydenham and London Bridge / City / Silicon Roundabout.

I really do have the wrong place. Hyperbole in spades

There is so much hyperbole regarding this junction. The statistics indicate it is not a problem except in people minds.

Not quite true: I've personally experienced a handful of near-misses there on a bike & know others (all of us with 10+ years experience riding on London roads) who also have.

Perhaps you all should take some extra coaching

I am sure I spotted Elvis there the other day coming down Greendale.

Common sense is all that is required.

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber Is this official? I can't see anything on council web site

Great news if true but shame it has wasted so much time (and presumably money) on a flawed scheme driven by a hidden agenda.

Thanks for your help and support on this.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Pleased to see community action has paid off.

>

> Labour have climbed down and now asking council

> officers to prepare a version of the proposed

> scheme keeping the RHT from Townley Road and that

> this is the recommended scheme for approval.

>

> Well done to everyone who has directly applied

> pressure to Labour councillors. It has worked.

> Still worth keeping the pressure up to ensure they

> don't vacilate.

>

> I will be asking any revised scheme includes red

> light camera for thE Townley Road branch as I

> think this is crucial for the diagonal crossing

> proposed under the new scheme to ensure it is safe

> to children to cross unaided.

James,

Much as you like to present it differently and claim full credit for all kinds of things you (and your Lib Dem colleagues) have had only had a peripheral involvement in, that is how democracy works. You know, consult, listen and act.

This could have been handled much better by the council but the people have spoken and apparently influenced political opinion. Not you and not Southwark Liberal Democrats or Dulwich and West Norwood (who's their Parliamentary candidate, remind us?) Liberal Democrats.

Now people from all political persuasions, affiliations and none who feel strongly about this issue need to maintain the pressure on the politician decision-makers, as I will be.

[James Barber]

Hi slarti b,

It's from an email sent by the Labour cabinet councillor asccountable for Transport. To me that's pretty official.

Hi @Woodwarde,

As the banned RHT came from knowhere I wouldn't expect a reconsultation of effectively a corrected scheme.

[@Woodwarde]

James

I would like to 'know' where the RHT ban came from, believe me! However, the consultation was for a single scheme and so I do not understand how it can revert to anything else as it has not been consulted. Or modelled.

[Tessmo]

If the NRT has gone, that?s good news. But it?s only the start. What we don?t want is Southwark rushing into a new scheme without first talking to the local cyclists, pedestrians, parents and residents who use this junction every day.

Local cyclists have good ideas about how the lights can be phased. Or where the stop lines should be. A lot of them believe the biggest problem is that drivers turning right from Townley Road into EDG look up, see what they think is a T-junction, and believe they have right of way ? which they don?t. Better signs? Road markings? Lighting Green Dale so that it looks like a road?

Ask cyclists and pedestrians what they feel about the idea of pavement build-outs that widen and slow down the turning circles that coaches have to make. Ask residents in Calton Avenue, or the cyclists who use this route, what they would feel if the build-outs made coaches reluctant to use EDG at all. Ask local residents from the Dutch Estate what happens when cars drop off children in Green Dale. Ask bus-users whether they feel it?s a good idea to reduce EDG going west to one lane if there are cars turning right into Green Dale to park. Ask children what they feel about the sheep pens and the islands in the middle of the roads?

Ask the local community. We all want better safety for cyclists and pedestrians. And we know this junction well.

Safer Routes called a meeting to discuss the original proposal last Saturday. How about Southwark now calling a meeting to discuss how to make this junction work?

You know, there are even some traffic engineers in the local community who have some pretty good ideas?

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew1011,

I suggested to resdeints they email Labour councillors being clear how they felt. A number copied me in.

Labour within days change their minds.

You're right it may be a fluke and totally unrelated.

labour cllrs dodging the issue on Saturday may quite naturally woekn up this morning and changed their minds.

Whatever cause this vbolte face it is good news.

[Duvaller]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

>

> James,

>

> Much as you like to present it differently and

> claim full credit for all kinds of things you (and

> your Lib Dem colleagues) have had only had a

> peripheral involvement in, that is how democracy

> works. You know, consult, listen and act.

>

Andrew1011,

The credit goes to everybody in the community who expressed a negative view of the NRT in whichever way they chose to do so - from handing out leaflets tor "Right Turn" iced biscuits.

All very effective when combined with all C'lls/Politician's worst fear ie not getting re-elected!

That said, until it is all confirmed, we should keep the pressure up and if not already done so, e-mail your Labour C'llr reminding her/him of the ballot box and....

http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/payback_zpsf3cab50f.jpg

Keep their feet to the fire!

[Andrew1011]

Duvaller Wrote:

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

> Andrew1011 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> Andrew1011,

>

> The credit goes to everybody in the community who

> expressed a negative view of the NRT in whichever

> way they chose to do so - from handing out

> leaflets tor "Right Turn" iced biscuits.

>

> All very effective when combined with all

> C'lls/Politician's worst fear ie not getting

> re-elected!

>

> That said, until it is all confirmed, we should

> keep the pressure up and if not already done so,

> e-mail your Labour C'llr reminding her/him of the

> ballot box and....

>

>

Thanks for your clarification of what I had obviously already said and intimated. Also, thanks for the advice to me on what I should now be doing. I've already done what I need to do and in the way that I've chosen to do it. Have you?

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Andrew1011,

> I suggested to resdeints they email Labour

> councillors being clear how they felt. A number

> copied me in.

> Labour within days change their minds.

> You're right it may be a fluke and totally

> unrelated.

>

> labour cllrs dodging the issue on Saturday may

> quite naturally woekn up this morning and changed

> their minds.

>

> Whatever cause this vbolte face it is good news.

Hi James,

Let's examine what you say above, shall we?

I obviously never suggested it was a fluke and unrelated so cease with the hyperbole. However, there was a meeting on Saturday where the views and strength of feeling on the issue was obvious. All councillors should have been there to listen to their constituents (as well as feedback from any other sources) and that, in my opinion, appears to be what has happened.

Also, for a volte face to occur surely the Dulwich area councillors you refer to would have had to have stated a position in the issue. I wasn't aware that, apart from you on here, any other councillors had done so, as you appear to suggest.

It now looks as though the majority party politicians in the Dulwich Community Council area may have been influenced on this issue by public opinion, but it would be wrong to suggest that their ideas were the opposite prior to that - as you appear to be misleadingly suggesting.

[James Barber]

Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for regeneration, planning and transport, said: ?My thanks to everyone who contributed to the recent consultation which received a significant number of responses. In light of the considerable local concerns raised by residents the right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove will remain, and I have instructed council officers to work up alternative proposals to make the junction safer. Further details on the new scheme will be presented to the Dulwich Community Council meeting in March, with a formal decision to be taken soon afterwards. We are committed to further public consultation and engagement on any new options.?

Ensuring this happens the next step will be to request these works take place during school holidays. The scale of work implies the summer holiday.

[Zebedee Tring]

Andrew 1011, why are you having a go at James Barber? He has been more involved in this issue on the EDF than any other Councillor. If you're going to have a go at anyone, have a go at the Councillors, Council officers etc who were responsible for the crazy no right turn idea getting off the ground. Concentrate your fire in the right direction.

For what it's worth, I am NOT a Lib Dem supporter, but I try to keep an open mind.

[slarti b]

To James and all local councillors who have helped persuade Southwark council to drop the RHT ban and re-examine this misconceived scheme.

Thank you for your support, whether openly on the forum (James, great to know someone was listening) or behind the scenes (presumably others). It is reassuring to see that local democracy can work.

Trying not to be party political, but I think local councillors of the ruling group on the council have a greater responsibility to ensure schemes like this are stopped at an earlier stage and proper process is followed. I expect future Southwark proposals affecting this area (eg Quietways) will now be examined in much more detail so please get it right next time ( and the next...)

Edited because I thought originally thought andrew 1011 was someone else...

[Duvaller]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> I've already done what I need to do and in

> the way that I've chosen to do it. Have you?

Yes, and quite a bit more besides!

One you will see if you come along Townley and do a R.T.

[Andrew1011]

> Trying not to be party political, but I think

> local councillors of the ruling group on the

> council have a greater responsibility to ensure

> schemes like this are stopped at an earlier stage

> and proper process is followed. I expect future

> Southwark proposals affecting this area (eg

> Quietways) will now be examined in much more

> detail so please get it right next time ( and the

> next...)

That's probably a position opposition councillors such as Mr Barber have the luxury of doing before a public consultation has been undertaken and completed. If the majority party local councillors had chosen to just vote against a council proposal backed and recommended by the council officers and advisor 'experts' then they clearly need to have appropriate reasons and justification for doing so. I am adamant that the no RHT proposal was wrong and lobbied on that basis, as have many other Dulwich and East Dulwich residents. I'm grateful that councillors with no apparent fixed views on the matter have apparently been convinced not to support a RHT ban. I also understand why they may want to listen to the views of all parties before publically stating their intention.

[Andrew1011]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Andrew 1011, why are you having a go at James

> Barber?

Because I can and am entitled to in our democracy. James likes to claim usually sole responsibility for any number of things, indeed you'll probably see him claiming responsibility shortly for the decision to allow a secondary school to be built on he Dulwich Hospital site, if that is the way the NHS/CCG decision goes on the 22nd January.

He has been more involved in this issue on

> the EDF than any other Councillor. If you're going

> to have a go at anyone, have a go at the

> Councillors, Council officers etc who were

> responsible for the crazy no right turn idea

> getting off the ground. Concentrate your fire in

> the right direction.

Of course you're entitled to that view, especially if your only knoweldge of local issues (and my actions) is gained from EDF. Mine isn't.

>

> For what it's worth, I am NOT a Lib Dem supporter,

> but I try to keep an open mind.

I'm not suggesting you are and I don't actually care. However, whatever your political leanings, I do suggest, as well as keeing an open mind, you stop apparently preventing others from their domocratic right to have a view and to express it. Just a reminder, this forum is not a James Barber/Lib Dem fiefdom.

[Tessmo]

Andrew 1011, calm down dear. You're a bit late to the party here. Zebedee has been measured, sensible, rational and impartial throughout. Which is what we like. We like keeping things calm and civilised on the EDF.

[slarti b]

Andrew 1011 -

First, thanks for lobbying against the RHT Ban.

Second, you commented

If the majority party local councillors had chosen to just vote against a council proposal backed and recommended by the council officers and advisor 'experts' then they clearly need to have appropriate reasons and justification

My understanding of councils is that the ruling party (or their cabinet members ?) comes up with ideas and policy, is advised by the officers and then presents plans for consultation at which point opposition councillors and public can have their say.

In this case either the officers or someone in ruling party should have pointed out,before it go to the stage it had, that the scheme was NOT recommended by professionals advisors and had NOT been properly modelled . Once the docs had been put on web site it took me about 15 mins of reading to work this out and I am not an expert.

Anyway, we seem to have a reasonable outcome after a huge amount of effort from local volunteers. Hope lessons have been learnt for the Quietway\Southwark Spine consultation (or is that a "Stakeholder engagement" exercise?) ;-)

btw this is not the "James Barber" forum, anyone can post on it. Perhaps all local East Dulwich councillors should? :-)

[Andrew1011]

Tessmo Wrote:

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

> Andrew 1011, calm down dear. You're a bit late to

> the party here. Zebedee has been measured,

> sensible, rational and impartial throughout. Which

> is what we like. We like keeping things calm and

> civilised on the EDF.

Dear Tessmo,

I am perfectly calm but thanks for your concern and attempt at a patronising response.

If you read the whole thread you will see that I was one of the early posters, so not late at all. As for what you like, who actually cares about that? I certainly don't. I've been reading and posting to the EDF for years, on this profile and another before that. It's also actually not my inmpression that "'We' like keeping things calm and civilised..." (and I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that I'm not being that), I've often witnessed people who choose to state their own views and not to engage in EDF 'group-think' hounded for expressinging their views on here.

I also suggest that if you don't like my views you don't read my postings and I won't read or respond to yours. Fair enough?

[Andrew1011]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Andrew 1011 -

> First, thanks for lobbying against the RHT Ban.

>

> My understanding of councils is that the ruling

> party (or their cabinet members ?) comes up with

> ideas and policy, is advised by the officers and

> then presents plans for consultation at which

> point opposition councillors and public can have

> their say.

>

> In this case either the officers or someone in

> ruling party should have pointed out,before it go

> to the stage it had, that the scheme was NOT

> recommended by professionals advisors and had NOT

> been properly modelled . Once the docs had been

> put on web site it took me about 15 mins of

> reading to work this out and I am not an expert.

>

While I agree with you generally, I don't believe majority party Dulwich councillors would have been involved in the original proposal. The process is cumbersome and and needs to be carefully thought about with the view to improvements but I suspect the suggestion you make, if universally applied, could mean that nothing ever happened or got done.

Anyway, we seem to have a reasonable outcome after

> a huge amount of effort from local volunteers.

> Hope lessons have been learnt for the

> Quietway\Southwark Spine consultation (or is that

> a "Stakeholder engagement" exercise?) ;-)

>

I hope so too. :-) And thanks for your measured and civilised response! ;-D

[Zebedee Tring]

(Removed after some consideration)

[Tessmo]

Andrew 1011, I went all the way back to the beginning of the thread and found that you posted on 23/11 and 24/11. So you're quite right, you were at the party right at the beginning. But you don't seem to have been around much recently - maybe you were in the kitchen having a few beers. I'm really confused why you suddenly got so cross. But that's what happens at parties sometimes. Good outcome, as you say. And whatever you contributed to make it happen, WELL DONE.