Proposed 10km new double yellow lines across Dulwich

[James Barber]

UPDATE 16 May - Southwark Labour have ignored all three ward councillors and the 85% of the 77 responses objecting to the implementation of double yellow lines across East Dulwich.

Labour controlled Southwark Council are proposing to introduce 10 metres of double yellow lines on each side of every road from every junction across Southwark.

It appears a slavish following of the Highway Code which says you shouldn't park within 10m of junctions. But of course the Highway Code is for all roads and doesn't vary this distance based on road speeds - all our roads are meant to be 20mph.

Clearly 10m is over the top. For 20mph roads 2 or 3 metres to ensure space for people to cross roads should be fine.

The decision about this will be presented at the Dulwich Community Council tonight from 7pm at Kingswood House, Seeley Drive, SE21 8QR. Due to a work commitment I can't make this meeting so I would encourage others to attend and explain if they are for or against this proposal.

The maths is East Dulwich ward 34 junctions each with 4 branches, each branch road with two sides x 10m = 2.72km of double yellow lines.

College ward 4.4km

Village ward 2.96km

The Dulwich Community Council has 9 councillors members 5 Labour, 2 Tory and 2 Lib Dems. As this is Labour policy it is very likely to be passed tonight. Labour have no plans for a public consultation.

In fact this will be probably the last traffic change involving the community council as Labour are proposing to remove this power from community councils to be involved with moving all traffic decisions to the leader of the council.

[Abe_froeman]

Don't most junctions in east dulwich already have extensive double yellows and build outs preventing parking anyway? How much difference is this actually going to make?

And isn't this anti car agenda actually part of the Southwark lib dem pro cycling policy?

[TheCat]

If the situation is as you say James, will turning up to the meeting actually make a difference?

This bullying of car owners is growing tiresome

[uncleglen]

Not to mention the COST- when they are always carping on about 'government cut backs'.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Who the hell decided this was a good use of council time and money?

[Rockets]

Probably the same local council type who in Lambeth decided to pay for adverts across the borough informing local residents that due to govt cuts they were having to make tough decisions on what to spend money on.....(the cost of advertising excluded of course....;-))

[Penguin68]

How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them (not necessarily 10 metres - and that clearly is overkill for many 'slow' roads) - so how much is actually additional? I ask not because I think it's a good idea (I don't) but because if you are to make an effective case against, then actual increased (as it were) parking reduction and not a back of a fag packet calculation would offer better evidence. I suspect that most of these roads already have 5 metres of restriction (or self denial restriction) - so are we talking perhaps 4.9km additional space lost, rather than 9.81km? And what percentage is this of the overall 'parking space' available on these roads for the 3 wards?

Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm agin it - but I would like to know exactly what I'm agin.

[Abe_froeman]

The paperwork for tonight's meeting is available here:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5160/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2015-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=10

I would be interested to know when this was circulated to councillors.

Some interesting points to note:

*Labour do have plans for public consulation. A traffic management order is requried to imlement the proposals and public consultation is mandatory, as set out in the DCC agenda (page 68): "We are therefore recommending implementing junction protection in all streets in Southwark on a ward by ward basis, subject to the necessary statutory consultation."

*There are 34 junctions affected but 18 of them are T junctions.

*"The yellow lines are installed ... for 7.5 meters on each arm of the junction." This means just over a kilometre of new double yellows.

[Siduhe]

Whether by accident or design, I can think of parts of ED where this is going to really have an impact on parking. I guess we'll see which of the two it is when the inevitable new request for a CPZ in ED goes up and if the Council then forms the view that there's sufficient pressure on parking now to justify it. Given some of what came out during the last round of CPZ consultation in ED (which wasn't under Labour as I recall - happy to be corrected on that) I'm pretty cynical about the reasons for this approach.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe-Froeman,

The legally required public consultation proposed is when an advertisement is placed at the back of Southwark News. Its usually only propeller heads like me that spot them.

The agenda pack for Dulwich Community Council I received at my home on Friday night. But I had been away for a couple of days through work. And I was away helping at a cub and scout camp all weekend so only last night did I get to read the pack after a parents evening.

The report is clear that almost all junctions would have double yellow lines added. And my recollection this morning is most don't have lines.

Hi P68,

IF you were correct 1000 metres of new double yellow lines / 4m per car would equate to 250 car parking spaces being removed.

I think what's propose is around 640 less car parking spaces in the East Dulwich ward alone or 2,500 across the Dulwich area.

But the rational is flawed. Yes the highway code says people shouldn't park within 10m of junctions BUT this is for any type of road with any legal speed limit. Obviously 20mph roads would need much much less than 10m.

[slarti b]

Penguin68 Wrote:

> How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them

The pack for this evening's DCC meeting shows 34 junctions in East Dulwich ward with no existing yellow lines. These are marked in red as "Proposed double yellow lines (junction protection doesn?t exist)"

So, yes, the figures Cllr Barber is quoting relates to totally new yellow lines.

There are also about 70 junctions in ED ward that already have "Existing junction protection(double yellow lines)" but I do not know if these are being reviewed to see if they meet the new criteria.

I certainly feel that parking on corners can be inconsiderate and dangerous, but I also feel that junctions should be looked at on a case by case basis using evidence and common sense rather than having this blanket approach. Presumably the big beneficiary would be our friends Conway but I don't think this is a good use of our money.

Also, I do not like the way the council is attempting to push through a massive change that could have significant effect on local residents in a pretty underhand manner with no publicity and no proper public consultation.

[richard tudor]

This meeting would have been known for sometime as the agenda would have to been agreed.

Why only now is Cllr Barber telling people on the day of the meeting? Who can just drop things and atten

Rather like the 20 mph limit slotted in at the end of the manifesto.

[madger]

I's just like to gently point out that Cllr Barber has no obligation to post helpful things like this on the website, he does it, I can only imagine, to let people know so that the local community can take action if they wish! And people can be quite aggressive under cover of anonymity, which is a pity. I just thought it was a shame, Richard Tudor, that you were criticising what was actually supposed to be a helpful action. You can easily sign up to the list to attend these Community Council meetings, so maybe you could do that so you can find out in advance if there are things you're interested in, that might be less frustrating.

10 metres does seem a bit excessive, given that East Dulwich ward is mostly small offshoot streets, and the local shops rely on people being able to park. It's always a balance, it seems, between stopping parking becoming too dominant, encouraging pedestrians and cyclists, and allowing the shops to have good passing trade.

[MarkT]

Southwark's Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 paragraph 1.2(a) provides a very good reason as to why increased visibility may not improve safety at any particular junction:

?b. Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.?

This needs to be considered for each individual junction.

MarkT

[kibris]

I dont think this is a problem and i think its good, this will stop people parking so close to the junction as this stops people pulling out or into a road safe. Also will help people cross the road safe SO LET THE LINES GO DOWN

[rendelharris]

"It appears a slavish following of the Highway Code which says you shouldn't park within 10m of junctions. But of course the Highway Code is for all roads and doesn't vary this distance based on road speeds - all our roads are meant to be 20mph."

Key phrase there is "meant to be," James. If the police and council, working togetehr, could ensure the 20mph zones are respected, then you're probably right, people could park closer to the corners safely. However, one only has to walk or cycle down any road with the 20mph limits to see that 95%+ of car drivers ignore it. If we could rely on all drivers obeying the Highway Code and traffic laws at all times all traffic calming measures would be extraneous, but I don't see such a utopia arriving any time soon, do you?

[BrandNewGuy]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> This meeting would have been known for sometime as

> the agenda would have to been agreed.

>

> Why only now is Cllr Barber telling people on the

> day of the meeting? Who can just drop things and

> atten

>

> Rather like the 20 mph limit slotted in at the end

> of the manifesto.

The Community Council agendas only appear on the council website in the week of each meeting, though often the 'theme' of the evening is announced in advanced. The dates are usually announced about six weeks in advance.

[eastdulwichhenry]

20mph for main roads like Lordship Lane and Denmark Hill is too slow. If you rigidly enforced it then even more traffic would end up on the smaller residential roads, which wouldn't really be good would it?

[rendelharris]

I entirely disagree. Why would people want to move onto tighter, more roundabout routes which would also be 20MPH? As for being too slow, all one is doing on main roads like LL and DH is moving from one set of traffic lights, zebras etc to the next. Driving at 30MPH just gets you to the next stop point quicker so you spend longer sitting with your engine running. I observe this empirically almost every day: cycling at an average of 15mph, I can stay with cars from Denmark Hill all the way to Clapham, Tooting and beyond, if they're going my way. They shoot off into the distance at 30MPH+, but I inevitably catch up with them again at traffic lights. Driving at 30MPH on roads with frequent lights and junctions doesn't get you to your destination any quicker than driving at 20MPH, but you will be a lot less able to react effectively to emergencies and you will do a lot more damage if you have an accident; if you hit a pedestrian at 30MPH, they are seven times more likely to die than if you'd hit them at 20MPH.

Two thirds of car trips in London are for distances under three miles (a disgrace but we'll put that to one side just now); imagine the utopia (for drivers) of a completely traffic free road with no blocks in terms of lights etc: at 30MPH you'd cover three miles in six minutes, at 20MPH you'd do the trip in nine minutes. Three minutes out of your day to be seven times safer in the event of a collision, seems a pretty good exchange to me.

[rupert james]

Seeing as you can use the bus lane maybe you are not the super hero you think you are.

[Rockets]

Other than the fact the Highway Code suggests this what reason are the council giving for the implementation of this? There is so obviously a hidden agenda at play here. Drop kerbs and drop kerb enforcement very efficiently keep junctions clear and ensure safe places for people to cross.

The anti-driving agenda is becoming tiresome and will ultimately backfire on those proposing it. Cars and traffic are an inevitable consequence of modern life and, in part, stimulated by public transport infrastructure that is not fit for purpose. Perhaps those who are empowered to manage these things should engage brain and look further than the "cars are bad" narrative and try and develop something that works for everyone.

[rendelharris]

I don't think I'm a superhero at all - I'm a slightly tubby vaguely unfit middleaged cyclist. I'm not trying to make a point about the efficacy of cycling, or only tangentially; the point is that travelling at an average of 15MPH I cover the same distance in the same time as cars travelling at 30MPH, due to the amount of time they remain stopped. So whether a road is 20MPH or 30MPH makes little odds to journey times, but a massive difference to safety.

Incidentally, the same effect can be observed on roads without bus lanes; part of one of my regular journeys goes from Clapham South, down Nightingale Lane, up Wandsworth Common, down Burntwood Road and on into Wimbledon. There isn't a bus lane in sight for around three miles, but (certainly in rush hour) I'll usually still have the same cars and lorries around me at the end as at the start.

Speed limits make a huge difference to safety, in a crowded urban environment with constant checks they make next to no difference to journey times.

[rupert james]

I suspect if the traffic has stopped you do not wait in line behind these stopped vehicles but edge dangerously up the inside path.

[rendelharris]

Showing your anticycling bias by tarring me with the brush of your own perception of cyclist behaviour, I see. As it happens I overtake on the outside at all times unless there's a cycle lane.

Interesting though that rather than reply to anything I said you rather absurdly, knowing nothing about me, accuse me of dangerous behaviour. Still the fact remains that however I maintain my average speed, travelling at 15MPH I get there just as fast as cars which go 30MPH, two minute stop, 30MPH, two minute stop.

[rupert james]

I have no bias. In fact You are becoming my super hero

"I don't think I'm a superhero at all - I'm a slightly tubby vaguely unfit middleaged cyclist."

Overtaking into oncoming traffic. Awesome