Homstall Road - Humps

[Mrs Y]

Now that the humps in Homstall Road are going back in and therefore the works finishing, does this mean the traffic lights are going and the crossing is being put back in forest hill road, as there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.

[SimonM]

I agree but I would not hold your breath! I'd be amazed if the traffic lights get removed now...

[bonniebird]

I wish, but them humps were there, then they weren't and now they are there again WTF's going on? (td)

[Marmora Man]

Time for our councillor to get involved. I can't locate the very lengthy thread about the installation of these lights, which were for the most part, deplored.

The reason the council gave for removing the traffic islands and installing traffic lights was to make it easier for large lorries associated with the reservoir work to turn into / out of Forest Hill Road. Equally, removing / redcuing the humps on Colyton & Homestall Road were to redcue noise & damage from large lorries driving over said humps.

If the restoration of the humps means the reservoir work is now complete then perhaps the council will make good its promise to remove the traffic lights which, it was stated in the original thread, would only be temporary.

[PeckhamRose]

I rmember that thread and I can't find it either, now.

But definitely they (council) had said the lights were temporary.

Anyone running a 'book' on this? My money says the traffic lights will stay!

[VikkiM]

Hello all,

A decision will be taken on whether to retain the traffic signals and crossing facilities or to remove the traffic signals, and revert back to the former zebra crossing in October ? possibly September, I?m just trying to confirm.

A independent safety report has been carried out on the junction and this recommends the retention of the facilities. Council officers are endorsing this position.

I?ve read through the safety report and some of the keys things seem to be that:

- Southwark?s road user hierarchy recognises the 'primary importance' of pedestrians. In this case, it seems that the retention of the current facilities would be better for them.

- If the traffic signals were to be removed there would, at busy times, be significantly more delay to side road (Dunstans/Colyton) traffic - so it?s the Forest Hill Road traffic that will be the main benefactors of the removal of the signals.

- These delays might increase possibility that drivers emerging from the side road would force their way out into the main road at inappropriate times, making accidents more likely.

I?ve raised a few queries about the report, not least that it does not seem to bear in mind that the pattern of road and pedestrian use might change once Harris Boys opens.

There are also some recommendations in the report about re-phasing the traffic lights, changing signage and ?street furniture? and possibly relocating the crossing on Forest Hill Road so I?ll also try to find out whether these improvements will go ahead if the lights are retained.

I?d also like to know exactly what was said back in 2007. The impression that I?ve been given is that, whilst the lights were temporary it was agreed that there would be a review of how good/bad they were before a decision was made to remove them. From comments on here, it seems that this wasn?t what residents were told, or at least it wasn?t made very clear.

On the bumps these have gone back and the 20mph signs have been retained ? I understand that notwithstanding a decision on the junction this was always the plan.

Keen to know what you think so PM or email or post on here and I'm happy to raise with Council officers before the decision is taken.

Cllr Victoria Mills

Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward

T: 07535932318

E: [email protected]

www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Peckham Rye News Facebook Group

www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

[Siduhe]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> I rmember that thread and I can't find it either,

> now.

> But definitely they (council) had said the lights

> were temporary.

> Anyone running a 'book' on this? My money says the

> traffic lights will stay!

Is it this post?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,42813,43436#msg-43436

[Vickster]

"- If the traffic signals were to be removed there would, at busy times, be significantly more delay to side road (Dunstans/Colyton) traffic - so it?s the Forest Hill Road traffic that will be the main benefactors of the removal of the signals."

"- These delays might increase possibility that drivers emerging from the side road would force their way out into the main road at inappropriate times, making accidents more likely."

In the four years I lived in the immediate vicinity to these junctions, prior to the installation of the lights, I don't recall either of these things being a problem.

What is a problem is that the lights cause some drivers to jump up the side roads and around the lights to avoid them, increasing the traffic on Dunstans, Rydale etc and Underhill (where I live) as a result. These drivers are not aware (or do not care) that they are going from a 30mph zone into a 20mph zone and rarely adjust their speed.

[SteveT]

Those traffic lights cause unnecessary hold ups which creates tail-backs, and it seemed better and easier prior to the lights installation, the place seems full of traffic now.

The vehicles from the side streets was and still is minimal, apart from the trucks which really are temporary unlike the traffic lights.

I would vote for a return to the original system and replace the traffic lights with pedestrian lights.

[dbboy]

SteveT - in full support of your comments, the sooner the lights are removed the better.

Southwark Council MADE A PROMISE, now stick to it.

[James Barber]

I'm sorry that promises made to the local community when the Lib Dems ran Southwark Council isn't going to be kept after change of political leadership for what sound fine reasons in abstract but don't appear to resonate with anyone's experiences who live there.

If you disagree with the Labour Peckham Rye councillors and officers recommednations go to the next Community council meeting and tell them. Date of next one is 5 October with venue to be confirmed.

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=177&MId=3391&Ver=4

[VikkiM]

For goodness sake James what a silly response!

If you click on the link to the 2007 postings it would seem that the Lib Dem council didn?t make a clear promise, rather the Lib Dem council ensured that there was an option that the lights could be retained.

And at this stage it isn?t possible to disagree with the Labour councillors because this one certainly hasn?t made up her mind!

As I say above, I am very keen to know what residents think so PM or email or post on here and happy to raise with Council officers before the decision is taken whilst also trying to ensure I don't get carried away with the 'abstract'...

SteveT/Vickster - thanks for the info.

Cllr Victoria Mills

Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward

T: 07535932318

E: [email protected]

www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Peckham Rye News Facebook Group

www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

[Gavin Edwards]

If I were a Lib Dem at the moment I wouldn?t bang too much on about broken promises prior to elections. . .

I too am going to keep an open mind. This is clearly a finely balanced issue and I?d like to listen to as wide a cross section of views as possible before making a decision.

People are very welcome to attend Community Council but getting in touch in advance of that will allow us more time to raise queries with officers.

Gavin Edwards

Tel: 07956624529

e-mail: [email protected]

www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

Peckham Rye News Facebook Group

[kford]

Traffic light cause motorists to speed up when they see a green or amber, unnecessary congestion and are generally ignored by pedestrians anyway.

On the occasions the traffic lights at the top of Dog Kennel Hill or Denmark Hill have failed, for example, traffic flows calmly and smoothly and people rely on eye contact.

[SimonM]

It's not a "finely-balanced" issue at all. The locals and the people who use this junction regularly seem almost overwhelmingly to want a return to the status quo ante, or something very similar. The Councils report is utter tosh

[PeckhamRose]

Exactly. This is the case everywhere, when traffic lights fail and people have to THINK, there are usually no accidents (and I know this is borne out by evidence gaterhers). The Exhibition Road scheme is going to be fabulous. The little stretch of road outside Sloane Square tube works well, too.

Please Mr Barber, get rid of the lights.

[Siduhe]

I very much agree with Vickster - when the lights are against the Forest Hill Road traffic, a few cars may cross out of the side roads. More often than not outside of rush hour, nothing comes out of the side roads and the Forest Hill Road traffic backs up. There needs to be a pedestrian crossing of some sort near the surgery - surely, this would allow traffic to flow out from the side roads when activated?

I catch the 63 bus regularly to and from work and the main impact of the lights is to back up traffic on Forest Hill Road, for little corresponding benefit that I can see. The lights should go.

[safesurfer]

i think the lights should stay. which i'm sure they will.

[SteveT]

Any particular reasoning for that safesurfer?

Everyone else seems to think the place would be improved without the lights.

[Marmora Man]

Apart from the logic of returning to the status quo ante - which worked to everyone's satisfaction, there are 5 following points to consider:

1. The Colyton Road / Forest Hill Road junction is just one junction of 7 in the 1.5 miles between the lights at Forest Hill / Wood Vale and Forest Hill Road / East Dulwich Road. In my experience over the last 6 years this particular junction is no more troublesome to exit onto FHR than any other junction.

2. Three sets of lights in 1.5 miles does disrupt the traffic flow - creating backlogs of idling traffic, extra noise and extra pollution. It does upset the timetabling of the 63 / 363 buses as it can take them an extra 5 / 10 mins to get from Forest Hill Tavern stop to the Peckham Rye stop. The purpose of a road planning is to facilitate sensible and safe traffic flow not to impede such traffic flow.

3. Many drivers avoid the lights by turning into Marmora Road or others off Forest Hill Road to turn relatively quiet residential roads with 20 mph speed limits into rat runs at peak times - usually travelling at speeeds far in excess of 20mph. This is particularly dangerous in the early evening (5.00pm - 7.00pm) when children do play in the roads on their bikes and skateboards.

4. The safety assessment was carried out with the lights in place and, almost certainly, reflects the cautionary principle so beloved of bureaucrats and loathed by me. There was no safety case made for the "temporary" installation of the lights - it has been acknowledged that the reason for the lights was to facilitate traffic movements associated with the reservoir works. The argument probably went - "if we remove the lights there might, in the future, be an accident and it may be argued that had the lights not been removed the accident wouldn't have happened. The council might be sued for taking the wrong action. Therefore we should take no action". It is so easy for local authority to do nothing rather than make a positive decision to do the right thing.

5. For Southwark council to be arguing for retention of the lights is going against the grain - the idea of reducing street clutter, traffic lights and other road impedimentia is now gaining traction almost everywhere. The concept has proved to be safer for everyone - with a reported 47% fall in accidents / incidents in Kensington where it was first trialled.

I will be attending the Community Council meeting and I will be contacting the council to make the points above.

[PeckhamRose]

I agree with MM, except I don't think I can make the reactive and rather talking-shop style community council.

[Marmora Man]

Letter sent:

See text should others wish to use as a template.

Transport & Streets Department

Southwark Council


PO BOX 64529

London

SE1P 5LX

Traffic Lights ? Junction Forest Hill Road / Colyton Road

Dear Sir,

I understand that Southwark Council are intending to retain the traffic lights at the junction of Forest Hill Road and Colyton Junction. This despite the fact that Southwark Council indicated, when the lights were installed in September 2007, that this would be a temporary measure.

As I am sure the Council is aware there were many local residents that objected to the initial installation of the traffic lights; there was no prior consultation but we accepted, once it was explained, that there was a need to improve access for large vehicles associated with the reservoir works. To decide now to retain the lights seems perverse. Apart from the logic of returning to the status quo ante - which worked to everyone's satisfaction, there are 5 following points to consider:

1. The Colyton Road / Forest Hill Road junction is just one junction of 7 in the 1.5 miles between the lights at Forest Hill / Wood Vale and Forest Hill Road / East Dulwich Road. In my experience over the last 6 years this particular junction is no more troublesome to exit onto FHR than any other junction.

2. Three sets of lights in 1.5 miles disrupts the traffic flow, as has been evidenced over the last two years. The lights create backlogs of idling traffic, extra noise and extra pollution. It upsets the timetabling of the 63 / 363 buses as it can take them an extra 5 / 10 mins to get from Forest Hill Tavern stop to the Peckham Rye stop. The purpose of a road planning is to facilitate sensible and safe traffic flow not to impede such traffic flow.

3. Many drivers avoid the lights by turning into Marmora Road or others off Forest Hill Road to turn relatively quiet residential roads with 20 mph speed limits into rat runs at peak times, usually travelling at speeeds far in excess of 20mph. This is particularly dangerous in the early evening (5.00pm - 7.00pm) when children play in the roads on their bikes and skateboards.

4. I understand a recent ?safety assessment? has been carried out. However, it was carried out with the lights in place and, almost certainly, reflects the cautionary principle so beloved of bureaucracy. There was no safety case made for the "temporary" installation of the lights - it was acknowledged, at the time of installation, that the reason for the lights was to facilitate traffic movements associated with the reservoir works. It is too easy for local authority to do nothing rather than make a positive decision to do the right thing.

5. To be arguing for retention of these traffic lights is going against the grain - the idea of reducing street clutter, traffic lights and other road impedimenta is now gaining traction almost everywhere. The concept has proved to be safer for everyone - with a reported 47% fall in accidents / incidents in Kensington where it was first trialed.

I recommend most strongly that these lights are removed and the original traffic islands replaced.

Yours sincerely

[SteveT]

Well put MM.

[nunheadmum]

Using this junction regularly from the Nunhead side (Colyton Road), I find the junction much safer and easier to use with the traffic lights. I can appreciate all the arguments against retaining the lights, particularly that drivers are using the connecting roads to avoid the lights. But I still prefer having the security of lights when using that junction rather than trying to edge out into what can at times be very busy traffic and not always the most patient or polite of drivers.

I know, I'm a wimp when driving!

I think that trying to assess that stretch of road at the moment will be very difficult, given the number of temporary roadworks etc that keep coming up. The pre-lights period I suspect had a lot less than there has been of late.

[James Barber]

Hi VikkiM,

Sorry you feel suggesting to residents they visit their next local community council and tell their councillors how they feel about this issue is a silly post. Being a Lib Dem i can't help believing in local democracy. Having a real local issue to motivate more local residents to get involved and visit a community council is in my mind a good thing.

I've received more requests this week about this issue over hear in East Dulwich that any other single issue. Those lights are causing problems in East Dulwich.

Hi Gavin Edwards,

Broken promises. Presume you mean lib dems joining a national coalition and having to negotiate which manifesto promises the coalition would deliver. Now that is a silly response. Labour are in coalition running Wales compromising and not delivering everything they promised. Labour were in coalition with Lib Dems running Scotland and both parties compromised and didn't deliver all their electoral promises. If voters don't leave one party with a majority then of course not all electoral promises can be delivered. When the negotiations for a national coalition were being made Labour bottled it and have chosen for non of its manifesto promises to be delivered.