Dulwich Community Council - Quietways and major proposal for double yellow lines

[richard tudor]

No comment from Barber or the others.

[wulfhound]

I'll eat my hat if they do 10m. Yes, that's what the Highway Code says, but it's patently excessive on these roads.

5m would be a big improvement to the sight lines on some of these, however. As a regular cyclist and occasional ZipCar-ist, some of these corners are needlessly tricky to see around, even when you're stopped. For example, I wouldn't let my son cycle down Crystal Palace Road (which is supposed to be the Southwark Spine cycle route), because the sight lines at some of the corners at the top end are lousy, it's hard enough for a grown adult who can see over the top of the parked cars, never mind someone smaller. Traffic emerging from the side roads has to pull way out to check that it's clear - or sometimes just doesn't bother.

[DulwichFox]

Well when CPZ is introduced .. most yellow lines will disappear... Cycle Hangars will be gone...

Southwark Council will be charging ?1,200+ a year for every parking space.. and they are going to use every inch of space for cars.

Just see how much Southwark Council will care about Cycles then..

DulwichFox.

[fruityloops]

?1,200 a year?

[DulwichFox]

fruityloops Wrote:

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

> ?1,200 a year?

Well who knows .. Currenrly Motorists in Birmingham are being charged as much as ?750 a year for a residential parking permit ? the highest rate in the country, a survey has found.

So it would not suprise me.. they can charge what they like..

DulwichFox

[milk76]

Parking on junctions is just crazy. It increases risk for drivers, forcing them to creep out into traffic because line of sight is blocked. worse though is danger for pedestrians trying to cross roads at junctions. It has always baffled me that the highway code was never enforced in London in this regard. If yellow lines are the only way to enforce the code and reduce these risks then so be it. One would think that five meters would be long enough down most side roads but I guess there is evidence on this.

Oh and Fox ?125 is the annual cost of a residents parking permit across all the southwark zones.

[edhistory]

Dulwich Community Council includes Village Ward and College Ward.

These two wards cover parts of East Dulwich.

the proposed junctions for treatment in East Dulwich are:

Village Ward = 9

College Ward = 8

Dulwich Community Council does not cover East Dulwich North of East Dulwich Station or East of Crystal Palace Road. Does anyone have, or find out, how many other East Dulwich junctions are proposed to get this treatment?

John K

[rch]

Bear in mind that the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group specifically asked for double yellow lines in addition to a barrier in Melbourne Grove during their deputation to the DCC in June 2015, which is what the ?10K of CGS funding was allocated to assess:-

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s54983/Deputation%20report.pdf

"To ask councillors to support a consultation and our campaign on the

idea of a barrier placed across our road between Ashbourne and Tell

Groves, and for better signage and double yellow lines"

Melbourne Grove South has 6 residential roads feeding into it (which is a large part of what creates the "volume" of traffic), so this means that a total of 24 parking spaces could be lost along here.

Having said that, as much as I hate the idea of double yellow lines (and I don't even drive!), I suspect that this could indeed address the issues that the MGTA group are campaigning on by creating spaces for cars to pull over to let oncoming cars pass on the narrower sections of Melbourne (even the officers' report stated that double yellows were the best way to address the perceived problem).

Having a place to pull over will stop the queues of cars from building up and then rushing through to make up time... it will also prevent cars from hitting parked cars while backing up to let cars pass.

As a pedestrian, I like the idea of build-outs better, but passing spaces are really what this road needs.

[hopskip]

rch Wrote:

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

> Melbourne Grove South has 6 residential roads

> feeding into it (which is a large part of what

> creates the "volume" of traffic), so this means

> that a total of 24 parking spaces could be lost

> along here.

>

Yellow lines

Page 59 of the DCC report states:

? A local parking amendment is (a) small project to change an existing parking restriction or to introduce a new one.

So, in Southwark's mind, a small project can correspond to multiple (in total 126) junction changes within a small radius, all proposed together.

? It also states that these tend to be carried out in locations where there is dangerous or obstructive parking.

There is NO evidence of accidents at the proposed junctions. Doesn't anything have to be justified in a relevant and specific way rather than anecdotally?

I hope this issue gets more sensible consideration by Councillors at the DCC tomorrow evening. It is scheduled as the last item so if you are going, then hang fast for this item. Perhaps it will get raised early in the meeting too.

[richard tudor]

Southwark want this so it will as you say be last and will get passed through on the nod.

Doubt Barber and co will say a word against it.

Doubt many people will even know it is happening.

[Scootingover]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> Southwark want this so it will as you say be last

> and will get passed through on the nod.

> Doubt Barber and co will say a word against it.

> Doubt many people will even know it is happening.

The detail for agenda item 17 says:

The Southwark Constitution sets out that the Dulwich Community Council will take decisions on local non-strategic matters. These include the introduction of road markings, the introduction of waiting and loading restrictions, the setting of boundaries for consultation on traffic schemes and the determination of objections to traffic management orders that do not relate to strategic or borough-wide issues.

If our Councillors do not draw breath on this one, and seek justification and evidence, then question why we need them.

[slarti b]

Just looking through the agenda for the DCC meeting this evening.

I thought there was going to be initial feedback of the results of the consultation exercise for the Quietway. However, I cannot see any mention of the it.

Have I missed something?

[rch]

I think it's listed as Item 9, Dulwich Cycle Workshops - Outcome, at 8.05pm. It's noted that a briefing paper will be circulated at the meeting...

[slarti b]

@rch

You may be right, but if so it is a rather misleading title! Given we have just been through a major (though short lived) consultation process surely it should be referred to explicitly in the agenda.

Oh well, lets see.

[rch]

Also, considering that the consultation only finished on Sunday, I can't see that there will be much to report back on this soon.

I just can't bear to watch democracy being decimated... so, if anyone goes, can they report back to us? If nothing else, it would be nice to see a scan of the briefing paper.

[The Pedestrian]

Have just signed a petition trying to put a stop to Quietway 7- Elephant and Castle to Crystal Palace. I have followed this closely- attended all meetings and 'consultations' etc. I have concluded that the only way to get a major re-think on this badly thought out scheme is sign a petition to put a stop to it, as the deputation at the last Community Council proposed. Petition below.

https://www.change.org/p/matthew-hill-southwark-gov-uk-stop-the-cycle-quietway-from-elephant-and-castle-to-crystal-palace/c/427096409

[The Pedestrian]

Have just signed a petition to try and oppose this 'Quietway'. I attended the last Community Council meeting. It could just go through on a nod really soon. It needs a total re-think and proper consultation about the route and not just the details, which will add up to a disaster!

https://www.change.org/p/matthew-hill-southwark-gov-uk-stop-the-cycle-quietway-from-elephant-and-castle-to-crystal-palace?recruiter=520725569&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

[spider69]

when will people wake up realise that this is how Southwark operates.

A few good souls propose and back whilst the vast majority of Southwark residents have no idea what is going on.

Take a look at some of the recent road changes and speed limit fiasco and understand

[The Pedestrian]

Yeah I know what you mean Spider69 but here's hoping...and signing the petition and sharing anyway. I think if more people knew about this they'd be up in arms. Let people know. Share the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/matthew-hill-southwark-gov-uk-stop-the-cycle-quietway-from-elephant-and-castle-to-crystal-palace?recruiter=521000459&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

[Abe_froeman]

You might get more support for this petition on the west dulwich forum, as the proposal barely affects east dulwich:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/lambeth-q7-wd/user_uploads/quietway-7-elephant---castle-to-crystal-palace.pdf

[The Pedestrian]

Actually, It will affect East Dulwich because it will have a major impact on roads for miles around. Two examples: when a bridge on Turney road was being fixed and Turney was closed, there was a huge increase in traffic at Herne Hill, Dulwich Village and Gallery Road. When Loughborough junction was shut down, traffic moved from Vauxhall Bridge to Battersea Bridge. No study of the impact on traffic movement has been carried out, even with the vast budget, because the aim is to ignore motor vehicles until they are forced off the road. East Dulwich won't know what has hit it this time next year if this scheme goes ahead!

[Abe_froeman]

That's exactly my point. The roads affected by any knock on effect, looking at the map, seem to be nor bury road, frosted road and college road, not any in east Dulwich.

[@Woodwarde]

I understand that the email below has been circulated to Dulwich Councillors. I have not seen anything drawing it to our attention on the Forum. Is anyone else aware of these emails from Councillors?

From: Gellard, Paul

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Cc: Olamijulo, Beverley; Herd, Michael

Subject: Village Ward - junction protection (double yellow lines)

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to you in regard to our recommendation to Dulwich Community Council (DCC) on 15/03/2016 to introduce double yellow lines on all road junctions.

At the DCC meeting, members deferred the proposal to install double yellow lines on all unrestricted road junctions in Village, College and East Dulwich wards and expressed a desire to consult local stakeholders on the proposal.

We consider the proposal to introduce double yellow lines on the junctions are a correct balance between road safety and parking. There is no explicit right to park on the highway and taking steps to ensure that the highway is as safe as possible is an important duty placed upon the council. There are significant benefits to more vulnerable road users, in particular pedestrians including the visually and mobility impaired, children and the elderly who may struggle to safely cross roads without adequate visibility.

There are 369 road junctions in the DCC area. The majority (65%) of these road junctions have existing double yellow line protection. I have provided a ward-by-ward break down for your information. Only 33% of junctions remain unrestricted.

Number of road junctions

Ward Existing double yellow line junction protection % Proposed double yellow line junction protection % Upgrade from single yellow line to double yellow line % Total no. of junctions

Village Ward 94 69% 35 26% 7 5% 136

College Ward 65 54% 54 45% 1 1% 120

East Dulwich Ward 79 70% 34 30% 0 0% 113

All Wards 238 64.5% 123 33.3% 8 2.2% 369

The council?s past approach to the introduction of double yellow has primarily been reactive, i.e. in response to complaints received about obstructive or inconsiderate parking at a junction that impacts on pedestrian and motorist visibility and road safety.

For the past decade we have regularly presented local parking amendments to DCC, to install double yellow lines on junctions and over the past 5 years, we have presented 42 separate location recommendations.

One reason for our blanket approach is so that there is a consistency of junctions within the DCC area and across the borough, and also a more efficient spend of the council's money. We accept that there are varying pressures upon parking in the area but to install it at some junctions, but not others, would mean that the council would likely need to re-evaluate those junctions at a future date.

The Council acknowledges that parking is at a premium at some locations in the DCC area, however, safety and access should take priority over the possible small loss of ?unsafe? parking spaces.

We have never received complaints about parking problems due to the impact of yellow lines installed on a road junction once they are installed.

We do not believe our proposal will significantly increase parking stress in streets and there is no evidence to suggest that the existing junction protection in the DCC area (238 locations) has in itself created parking problems.

In general, motorists should not be parking within 10m of a junction as per the Highway Code. Our proposals will address these problems and remove only 'unsafe' rather than ?safe? parking spaces. Officers believe 7.5m to be an acceptable compromise and allows a consistent and clear message throughout the area about where and where not to park. At the moment, we are giving mixed messages by ?protecting? some corners with double yellow lines and leaving others unrestricted.

In order that we can present a report to DCC in time for the next meeting to reconsider this issue, Should you feel that there is a road junction that does not require double yellow line protection, I would very much appreciate if you could advise me on the exact location and reasoning?s why it should not be taken forward. Any responses received from members will be included in our report that will be presented at the next meeting. Ideally if I could have your feedback by 22 April 2016, it will provide me with enough time to update and submit the report.

At the foot of this email, I have provided a list of all the roads junctions in your ward where we are proposing to install double yellow lines. These locations have been derived from our mapping system and include some entrances to housing estates. This explains why some locations include to roads name twice, i.e. ?Bowen Drive and Bowen Drive?. Please complete the table accordingly and return to me.

Any individual informal consultation with local stakeholders affected as part of this initial phase should done by the Councillors directly.

It is also important to consider that we are only seeking approval to commence statutory consultation; should objections be received during the statutory consultation period, this will then be presented to DCC at a later date for determination for each individual site where objections are received.

Kind regards

Paul

Paul Gellard

Senior Engineer ? Parking Projects

Highways | Environment & Leisure

London Borough of Southwark | 3rd Floor | Hub 1 | London | SE1P 5LX

www.southw

[spark67]

I have to say I am always suspicious of councils when it comes to parking, t's pretty well known that they make a lot of revenue from various speed cameras/parking fines... though I have to say in SOME cases the yellow lines make sense near junctions.

Coming out of Ashbourne road onto Melbourne can be a nightmare, with cars parked close to the junction, especially from the left with the slight bend on Melbourne which cars tend to bomb round, I end up inching out everso slowly craning my neck to see whats coming, and still nearly get my front clipped by car which I can't see until the last minute.

[wulfhound]

Councils _do not_ make money from speed cameras. That goes to the Treasury.

They can & do make money from parking fines, meters, CPZ charges and suchlike.

A cynic might suggest that there is a causal link between this and their apparent lack of concern around one, and their enthusiastic enforcement of the other.