Duvaller

January 27, 2016

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Duvaller Wrote:

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

> -----

> > minder Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > Can't imagine two double deckers trying to

> pass each other on the hill.

> >

> > All the buses are the same width ie 2.54m ,

> 8'6".

>

> I regularly follow P4 and (single decker) 42 up

> Red Post Hill and it is a tight squeeze for them

> around the traffic islands.

> Apart from the width does a double decker have the

> same length and turning circle as current single

> deckers on the route? If not then changes may

> well be needed.

Agreed, the traffic islands are detrimental to flow because the parking spaces are too close to them. A bit of adjustment would solve the problem.

January 26, 2016

minder Wrote:

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

Can't imagine two

> double deckers trying to pass each other on the

> hill.

All the buses are the same width ie 2.54m , 8'6".

January 26, 2016

I support the TFL proposal.

All I would change would be to cut out 2 stops on Grove Vale especially the one at North Dulwich Station.

Great for kids going to Charter School and folk going to Kings College Hospital.

January 23, 2016

I've wondered for ages why my Azaleas, Acers etc were dying off and traced the problem to them getting ring barked. Something has been chewing them near the bottom of the stem. Any ideas what's doing it?

October 10, 2015

If it is at late afternoon then it's commuter traffic going towards the South Circular ie heading out of town.

September 5, 2015

first mate Wrote:

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

> But surely S'wark and even the DCC would have

> known what would and would not be allowed by TFL

> before any works went ahead?

Exactly. This is now the time for our elected Councillors to convene a public meeting to advise the public on what has happened and what is likely to happen going forward.

Let's see if any of them will put their heads above the parapet to comment.

So, Councillors, let's hear it from you!

September 5, 2015

You sure that photo was taken in Calais? Looks more like Glastonbury to me.

September 5, 2015

Given that TFL are paying for it, they can pretty much do it as they want and they can pay scant regard to what the Dulwich Community Council decided.

TFL messed up the junction several years ago and this is their attempt to fix it.

The outcome is they have worsened matters as far as vehicular traffic (esp 37 bus) and cyclists are concerned plus the "desired line" assumption for pedestrians hasn't been adopted to any great extent.

To waste >?250,000 in this manner certainly suggests that an official inquiry should be initiated.

September 4, 2015

I for one, will be complaining to TFL. Complaining to the council is a waste of time as the DCC voted this through unanimously.

TFL made a mess of it previously and have had the privilege of spending ?250,000 to mess it up again.

https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csip/CreateRequestValidateAndSave.do

April 13, 2015

Nigello Wrote:

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

> What did you do with them?

Why do you ask? You're no an estate agent are you by any chance?

March 11, 2015

sanity girl Wrote:

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

> It will only benefit people who have mobile phones

> that use 4G. I have an iPhone 4s that uses 3G not

> 4G. So no, I don't think it will benefit all

> mobile users.

Should you read the supporting documents you may find that it covers 2G,3G and 4G specifically..

4G 800 MHz

Cellular Band

2G/3G 900 MHz

Cellular Band

2G 1800 MHz

Cellular Band

3G 2100 MHz

Cellular Band

4G 2600 MHz

Cellular Band

March 11, 2015

macutd Wrote:

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

> Look! all it needs is a sign saying BEWARE OF

> ONCOMING CYCLISTS at the traffic lights on Townley

> rd. If that is the problem.

> Cost ?50 , Done!!

Sorry, but we can't possibly have that as it doesn't cost nearly enough. We've got to spend ?Millions.

It also reminds me of a story about Fred and Ted........

Fred: Hey Ted, hows it going?

Ted: Not bad, but the new Labour government just took my paycheck to help build a 10 mile bridge to an un-populated island.

Fred: You wouldn't have bought anything with it anyway, the government controlled economy doesn't produce consumer goods.

March 11, 2015

MiniViking Wrote:

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

> If this mast gets built, will it benefit users of

> all of the mobile networks (O2, EE etc) or only a

> limited number of them?

>

The supporting docos say that it is for Vodafone and O2 for 3G and 4G services.

It's part o Vodafone's "Project Spring" ?13Bn investment programme and they will sub-let to O2.

March 10, 2015

If the Labour Councillors force this through then don't forget you can get payback...

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

March 6, 2015

Sorry Slarti b, but 10a does not have the two lane approach for EDG west-bound. 10b gives a better layout, IMO.

March 3, 2015

Come in James Barber,

Villager has challenged you to come up with facts that support your comments yesterday.

He provided the source of his facts. So it's up to you to give some credence to your views.

There's been far too much twaddle expressed by Councillors and some others saying the junction is unsafe. It is a very safe junction. The official police accident stats prove it. Look them up. So for you to say ""only a fifth are actually reported"" is just more blatant twaddle. Pure unfounded speculation created to further a particular view.

February 27, 2015

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Duvaller

> which two documents are you comparing? Can you

> provide the links.

The table I provided came from the Final 2014 Report on the Townley Rd junction.

Here is the link...

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11335/east_dulwich_grove_townley_road_junction_safety_review

What is apparent is that there huge discrepancies between both - particularly in the volume of traffic and the queue lengths. Here's the link and corresponding tables from the Southwark web site as of today:-

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4080/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation

http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/tomdhu/Townley%20Queues.jpg

February 27, 2015

Study of the re-consultation shows that the Technical Note (Issue 3) does not contain crucial data that was included in the earlier report.

The missing data suggest that the tail-backs at the junction will almost double during peak hours.

The table below shows the PCU ( Passenger Car Units) for each arm of the junction before and after the proposed works.

For example Townley Road in the AM goes from 6.4 to 12.3 PCUs. That aside their figures seem understated as, from my experience, the tailbacks on EDG WestBound AM regularly get up to around 20 PCUs

http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/tomdhu/Traffic%20queues_2.jpg

I just wonder why such crucial data was omitted.

February 26, 2015

Irrespective of all the arguments arising from this particular consultation, what it has revealed is a glaring discrepancy in the consultation process.

The discrepancy is the absence of any costings in the consultation document. Southwark say it is not their policy to provide costings to the public! Hello..

Most people I spoke to thought the changes to the junction would cost around ?25,000 and were horrified to learn that it close to 1/4 ?Million

I contend that the full budget cost of any proposal that goes to consultation should be included in every consultation package.

February 25, 2015

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

>

> I am opposed to the current proposals, but

> slagging off Labour is only going to encourage

> Councillors to say "It's those damned Dulwich

> Tories again. We won't listen to them".

I'm not a Tory! You may not be aware but here's a new force in politics that will take votes off both Labour and the Tories.

February 25, 2015

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> They pitched for ?200K+ from a pro-cycling scheme

> and got it. So that's what they're doing. Spending

> it. It sucks.

BNG,

I forget who it was but a Republican in the USA was quoted as saying "There are few pleasures as intense as spending other people's money".. That's why Democrats aspire to political office."

Which resonates with another quote "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The Labour Councillors are certainly giving these quotes some credence as far as this issue is concerned.

February 25, 2015

The BBC London news tonight said that there are more accidents involving cyclists at the Elephant & Castle roundabout than any other location in London. I guess that also means more than any other location in the UK too.

Why then does Southwark propose wasting ?220,000 on the Townley Road junction which doesn't have a safety problem? Meanwhile serious accidents and fatalities happen regularly at the E. & C and Southwark do nothing about it.

Beats me.

February 25, 2015

Apart from James Barber who makes regular contributions to the EDF, the absence of contributions from all the other Councillors is very evident.

It's about time the other Councillors who are directly involved, one way or the other, came out of hiding and expressed their views on this issue. Therefore, I send an open inviation to them to contribute by answering this question.......

""Do you think that spending ?220,000 is justified when historic data show that there is not a problem with this junction and that recent modelling commissioned by Southwark shows that there will be increased delays to the traffic?""

Some of you may wish to pose other questions diectly to the Councillors individually, so I give below a list of their e-mail addresses.

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Con)

[email protected]; (LibDem)

[email protected];(LibDem)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected], (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected] (Lab)

They are supposed to repesent us, so let's hold them to account!

February 24, 2015

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> so Duvaller, you're a head in the sand type too,

> eh?

Not an accurate classification.

More accurately I am a regular cyclist and pedestrian but very occasional driver who has never had a problem with this junction and I can't see any real benefit arising from the proposed changes. They will only delay the vehicular traffic and frustrate the drivers more. One result may be that some drivers from Townley turning right will cross over late after the lights have turned red.

February 24, 2015

first mate,

I'm not convinced about the intentions of the LibDems on this as yet but their numbers on the Council are very small.

Fundamentally this is a Labour-driven proposal led by Cllr Mark Williams and his cohorts. They are the ones who want to spend the ?220,000 to achieve little apart from delaying the traffic.

So as to make it easier for us all to remind them that there will be accountability at election time , here are all their email addresses:-

East Dulwich Ward

[email protected]; (Lab)

College Ward

[email protected]; (Lab)

Brunswick Park Ward

[email protected], (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected] (Lab)

Other Wards

[email protected]; (Lab)