Proposed 10km new double yellow lines across Dulwich

[richard tudor]

Remember the implementation of the blanket 20mph. Much the same MO

Sited deep in the manifesto under healthy living.

Perhaps Cllrs should remind Southwark Council they work for us the residents not their rule book.

[sandyman]

Maybe the Council has a joblot of yellow paint they need to use.

https://dfijamiesamman.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/double-yellow-madness/double-yellow-small2/

[mockingbird]

sandyman Wrote:

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

> Maybe the Council has a joblot of yellow paint

> they need to use.

>

> https://dfijamiesamman.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/do

> uble-yellow-madness/double-yellow-small2/

Funny, tho perhaps equally useless!. It does demonstrate the point that 10m is guidance and that reality 'should' apply to circumstances.

[Heart108]

Thanks for posting about the proposed yellow lines - I would not have known about it otherwise. Also good that there is a delay in making a decision:

1 - I can't see the purpose of making a blanket policy to paint yellow lines. Why incur the expense painting all junctions? Surely there could be a decision for expert traffic engineers with input from local residents paying attention to the junctions that really matter.

2 - What does it cost to paint 10k of lines? Where are the examples in other boroughs that this is worth doing? Is there a hidden agenda? ( i.e. that the Council 'need' to spend money/use up a bit of budget so that the spending grant each year is maintained? I have yet to find a logic for the expensive resurfacing of local roads that did not need it .. ( like sections of Upland Road a few years ago) which must have cost a fortune and was quite unnecessary.

3 - Better to have a team that goes out and does rapid/emergency yellow line painting where it is quite clear there is dangerous parking ( see my reply to the thread about Dangerous Parking on Barry Rd/Underhill Rd Junction) which is still continuing as we speak despite being mentioned on the forum last December.

[@Woodwarde]

Heart108 Wrote:

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

> Thanks for posting about the proposed yellow lines

> - I would not have known about it otherwise. Also

> good that there is a delay in making a decision:

>

Heart108. Worth keeping an eye on the Southwark website for the Dulwich Community Council papers - they tend to appear a week before the meeting. This is how residents spotted the proposal and flagged it for the EFD here:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1649080

As you note, it's ironic to see such an untargeted proposal, when real hazard spots such as yours have been flagged to Southwark with no follow up evident.

[Lazero]

As with most things like this, it's human time that is most expensive, particularly when it is engaged ad hoc (rather than all in one, efficient block of time). So I suspect that painting everything, using a blanket set of rules, works out the cheapest per metre of painting needed. Of course doing nothing is the cheapest but clearly not good enough for many junctions!

I like the idea of looking to local residents - perhaps there can be some sort of "crowd sourcing" stage that takes place first. You nominate and vote on junctions, maybe even suggest distances. Then at the very end the experts can be brought in to review and give the necessary orders? They probably wouldn't be keen on this level of work... and I can't imagine this consultation would be cheap to set up/ run.

Heart108 Wrote:

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

> 1 - I can't see the purpose of making a blanket

> policy to paint yellow lines. Why incur the

> expense painting all junctions? Surely there

> could be a decision for expert traffic engineers

> with input from local residents paying attention

> to the junctions that really matter.

>

> 2 - What does it cost to paint 10k of lines?

[James Barber]

Hi Lazero, Heart108,

The cost would be recovered in issuing tickets to drivers who park on the proposed double yellow lines.

The council is currently working up plans for emissions based controlled parking one fees. I fear that removing around 2,500 car parking spaces via these double yellow lines - and some should be removed perhaps 2-3 metres at each junction to make it possible to cross the road - is designed to put sufficient parking pressures for people to change their mind about controlled parking.

East Dulwich has made it's decision about this a few years ago.

Such double yellow lines has been recently justified by Village ward councillors being applied to thE North Dulwich Triangle area due to the controlled parking zone being introduced.

[first mate]

Thank you James for highlighting what these proposals are really about. Driving through CPZ is what the Council want and junction safety is a useful eyecatching peg on which to hang a mass reduction in car parking spaces.

[gm99]

This has 'end of year underspend' written all over it.

That said, I live in an area (edge of SE5) where double yellows were painted at all junctions (I think generally 7.5m) following the introduction of a nearby CPZ, and while there was a loss of parking they have also made for a rather safer environment for road users, pedestrians etc.

[Heart108]

Thanks James for this explanation - are you personally in favour of the blanket yellow line policy or advising against it? I am just curious to know ( i.e. this is not a hostile or challenging question :)

I find the 'gm99' phrase 'end of year underspend' extremely useful summing up what I have described at more length in several posts. Would be interesting to know the real policy motives behind this.

* * *

Also - literally a few moments ago I just drove past the intersection between Barry and Underhill Rd where there has been a nasty looking collision between P13 bus and a motorcyclist.

Without prejudging the issue I wonder if this has to do with the bus not being able to see clearly enough up Barry Rd

Am going to post about this separately

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Lazero, Heart108,

> The cost would be recovered in issuing tickets to

> drivers who park on the proposed double yellow

> lines.

>

> The council is currently working up plans for

> emissions based controlled parking one fees. I

> fear that removing around 2,500 car parking spaces

> via these double yellow lines - and some should be

> removed perhaps 2-3 metres at each junction to

> make it possible to cross the road - is designed

> to put sufficient parking pressures for people to

> change their mind about controlled parking.

> East Dulwich has made it's decision about this a

> few years ago.

>

> Such double yellow lines has been recently

> justified by Village ward councillors being

> applied to thE North Dulwich Triangle area due to

> the controlled parking zone being introduced.

[James Barber]

Hi Heart108,

I'm against almost any blanket policies such as this. Southwark is really a number of communities with different needs, views and expectations.

Specifically I'm against this proposal for every junction to have 10m double yellow lines at all our junctions.

This was propsed for all North Dulwich Triangle streets last summer and I pushed as harder than normally acceptable for a min ward Councillor for that patch that it be refused but Village ward councillors - both Labour snd Conservatives - were perfectly happy for it to proceed there where the CPZ happen or not. Both should have started there last week.

Sorry to hear about a P13 and motorcycle crash. The double me yellow lines are actually focuses on quoted residential roads. If you take a look at www.crashmap.co.uk you'll see such junctions have only rare crashes. Also research shows greater sight lines can lead to greater speeding. So although the doh me yellow lines looks a useful safety idea it could as easily lead to more crashes.

EoY budgets. I suspect as likely to do with someone completing their personal al objectives by year end as anything else. Ideally they

D start such things with us so we can influence the whole borough.

[rendelharris]

Can you provide a link to this "research [which] shows greater sight lines can lead to greater speeding" please James?

Also, that is an argument for more stringent monitoring and prosecution of speeding and introducing measures to stop it, not for opposing longer sightlines. Otherwise we could say yes, those potholes in the road are dangerous and could cause an accident, but if we repair them some people will take advantage of the smooth road to speed. You are conflating two separate road safety issues which require separate solutions.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Otherwise we could say yes,

> those potholes in the road are dangerous and could

> cause an accident, but if we repair them some

> people will take advantage of the smooth road to

> speed.

Better to fill the holes and build speed bumps

[Abe_froeman]

James if you read Southwark councils paperwork it suggests that the standard implemented is 7.5m or less. Where does the idea that Southwark have or will paint 10m of double lines at every junction come from? In many places there are just a few feet of double yellows, and as far as I can see there are no published plans to change that.

Is different information available?

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi all,

I have spoken to the officer who came up with the idea of the blanket 7.5m lengths of double yellow lines at junctions. The reasoning behind this is that parking at junctions contravenes the highway code and is unsafe eg for drivers , cyclists etc and visibility and pedestrians crossing the road. Over many years, mainly due to safety concerns (often when residents have raised the issue, eg with their ward councillors) the lines have been gradually introduced. This has meant consultation and implementation on a junction by junction basis. In East Dulwich the proportion of junctions with double yellow lines has already reached 60%. The reasoning behind treating the other junctions on a Ward by Ward basis is to increase safety and do so in a more efficient manner than the current piecemeal strategy. My Ward, Peckham Rye hasn't been considered yet, but at some point it will, and it will come to Peckham and Nunhead Community Council for discussion. This has definitely not been put on the agenda as a money generating exercise as has been mooted above!

Renata

[edhistory]

> I have spoken to the officer

Who is this person?

John K

[first mate]

Renata,

Not directly money making but obliquely, once CPZ is mooted as a result of losing so many parking spaces.

[spider69]

Posted by Renata Hamvas Yesterday, 10:54PM

Hi all,

I have spoken to the officer who came up with the idea of the blanket 7.5m lengths of double yellow lines at junctions. The reasoning behind this is that parking at junctions contravenes the highway code and is unsafe eg for drivers , cyclists etc and visibility and pedestrians crossing the road.

Is this a new officer who has made it his mission to change something after reading all the books with no real experience?

[@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.southwark.gov.uk

[TheArtfulDogger]

thanks woodwarde

Feels like a case of we are doing it regardless of what residents and councillors say, unless you can provide a case by case reason why we shouldn't and we wills do a lip service consultation and still do what we want anyway...

Sigh it's about time council officers realised they work for the public and not the other way around....

Looking forward to the consultation and pushing back on expensive proposals like this when the cash could be better spent elsewhere...

[James Barber]

Hi @Woodwarde,

No that email was only circulated to Village ward councillors. I've not seen it.

What the email fails to highlight is the current junctions with double yellow lines are typically with A or B roads. The new proposal is to add double yellow lines at much quieter junctions where we can close to zero crashes. This exercise isn't about road safety per se but about making the documentation around junctions consistent.

I could see an argument for 2-3metres of double yellow lines to aid crossing roads. But the 7.5m-10m proposed double yellow lines in each direction at every junction is complete overkill.

What the email from Paul also doesn't make clear is traffic management issues and decisions are being removed from local councillors in Community councils. The decision taken by the Labour administration is to centralise all such local traffic management decision making from May to the Labour Council leader. This would make it easier to take unpopular decisions by the council such as this.

[catma]

Junctions are all different - 10m of yellow lines behind you will not change the reduced sightlines for the actual manoeuvre because of hedges and lamposts (Choumert road onto Bellenden Rd) or multiple lamposts (Chadwick onto Bellenden)or the angle of the junction (Danby onto Bellenden). This is far more of a risk to other road users. How will it change anything??

[James Barber]

Hi catma,

Absolutely.

I think this is about box ticking. Ticking a box that all junctions across all Southwark have double yellow lines.

Regards James.

[TheCat]

So the Senior Engineer of PARKING projects wants to get rid of parking space...comforting....

[TheArtfulDogger]

End of financial year budget spending comes to mind!