slarti b

@Bicknell you said: You know, I think the best option would be for Alleyns and JAGS and their junior schools to categorically say to all their parents that no child should be brought to school by car. (Get them to sign a promise when they accept a place.) I've been told that other London schools do that. In this discussion about local schools and their responsibilities remember the following: The application for the funding to TFL to "improve" the junction was supported by Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (SRS). SRS is a consortium of local schools including ( from their map) JAGS, JAPS, Alleyns, Dulwich College, Herne Hill School, Dulwich Prep and state schools. JAGS and Alleyns in particular seem to have very close links with SRS. - In the funding application to TFL, SRS stated they would "ensure full cooperation and well organised support in the implementation of any funding received" - SRS has stated they have worked with the council for several years on plans for this junction. - SRS unconditionally supported the discredited, dangerous Option 7, ignoring local resident's concerns about rat running and increased danger on other roads and junctions - SRS emailed their supporters (whether or not they are local) with misleading, inaccurate statements strongly urging them them to support the dangerous Option 7 - SRS are once again emailing their contacts to unconditionally support the councils current option 8A, with no mention of the the issues raised by the local community - 34% of JAGS pupils are brought to school by car, despite good public transport links and the school coaches ( btw this is the only school travel plan I have found so far) SRS wants to reduce traffic at school run time; if they are serious about this why aren't their members, particularly JAGS and Alleyns, doing what Bicknell suggests, rather than promoting and supporting options that will make other roads and junctions dangerous and disrupt the local community? I used to have a lot of respect for the local independent schools but I am shocked by the way they have behaved over this matter. I will bear this in mind the next time I receive a request for support ( whether for funding or a planning application) from those with whom I have a connection.

@Wulfhound - Alleyns pupils crossing diagonally on junction? Not convinced. From my observations of the junction many cross Townley south of existing "cattle pens". I reckon under Option 8A they will cross Townley at traffic island because it is more direct. If so, they will cross the pinch point caused by the bays. - Confident cyclists using bays? I agree that currently it is a pain to get to the ASL on Townley from Calton. But, I wouldn't cycle into a bay if I thought the light might change to red delaying me. In this respect both Options 7 and 10 are better since they have a full cycle lane to the ASL. - Drivers expecting cyclists to use cycle lane\bay. Interesting your point about it not being dangerous because cars are going slowly. Maybe that is a reason why, although it is a very busy junction at the morning peak it actually has a much better accident record than others close by. Do you think this undermines the case for the (IMHO) over engineered cycle bays in option 8A? Whoever is right, what concerns me is that I see no evidence the council has considered these sort of points and the meeting on Saturday didn't reassure me.

@Wulfhound Think you are correct that this is not shared pedestrian\cycle space in Option 8A. But Woodwarde raises a valid point about Option 8A taking space out of the the existing pavement and allocating it to the "signalised cycle bays". Currently, in the morning there is often a jam where pedestrians going North West along Townley (to JAPS\JAGS) meet those going opposite direction ( pupils to Alleyns). From a rough measure last night I reckon the pavement is about 3.1 metres wide at narrowest point. Under 8A this will be reduced suddenly to a pinch point of 2.5m by the cycle bay. Given the abrupt reduction in pavement width I suspect this will lead to pedestrians stepping into the cycle bay, increasing danger both for them and the less confident cyclists using the bays (if any!). I believe most confident cyclists will bypass the bays and carry on the main road to avoid delays. However, another point raised on Saturday was this could cause problems with aggressive car drivers who expect cyclists to use the cycle path and bays. This is really not a good place to be trying out these experimental layouts, particularly given the complete absence of any forecasts of user numbers or criteria for success. If it doesn't work, will be stuck for another 10 years till Southwark can get funding to put it right?

@Cllr Barber James, you said Whether you think a diagonal crossing is a good or bad idea - that is how the majority of chilren are already using the crossing. This is not correct. Was this part of the Council Office advice? The JMP report includes detailed analysis of pedestrian numbers on the various crossings and desire lines. The actual number of children using the path of the proposed diagonal crossing is just under 18%, a long way from a "majority". I think many of the people currently crossing diagonally do so because of the cattle pens and poorly designed existing crossings. If these are removed and crossing distances reduced maybe the diagonal crossing would not be needed. I am not too concerned about the diagonal crossing itself, but it seems to be used to limit or preclude other options (eg better markings for cyclists across the junction)

@bawdy nan I would be happy with Option 10A, though I am still not convinced by the traffic modelling rejecting Option 10B. This will improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists and I believe will keep the junction operating efficiently. Interestingly, it is pretty similar to the old Option 4 prepared by independent consultants JMP. The council have recommended Option 8A which, even on their own figures will cause delays and tailbacks. My guess is this is part of an attempt to move traffic away from the junction ( a RHT ban in disguise) increasing rat running on other local roads. I cannot leave this to the council to make the decision for me. This process has shown their statements are not to be trusted. added.. and at this stage I am not going to enter the value for money debate! I want rational decisions based on evidence assessed by competent, independent experts!

@Cllr Barber, I will try and get to the session on Saturday but, even if I can make it, I am not confident of getting answers to my queries. I would would appreciate it if you could ask the questions and I hope that you, as a councillor, will get proper replies. Since the modelling used to help justify the council's option has been carried out by a joint venture between FM Conway and AECOM could you also ask the following questions ? - If Southwark goes ahead with work on the junction will it be carried out by FM Conway? - The person named in Nov 2014 as Southwark's prime contact for the original consultation was Chris Mascord. Who is he employed by? (according to his linkedin profile he works, not for Southwark Council, but for AECOM) Southwark have stated they need to comply with latest best practise so: - Since the scheme is to be funded by TFL can Southwark confirm they have complied with the TFL traffic modelling guidelines (See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/traffic-modelling-guidelines.pdf) - In particular, can they confirm that the modeller, Martyn Gould, has complied with Sections 2.6 and 2.7 ?

@Mr Ben See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063458/Family-doctors-firm-raking-1-8m-YEAR--patients-say-surgery-appalling.html According to the accounts for the year to March 2014, DMC Healthcare made post-tax profits of ?470k and paid dividends of ?600k. It still had ?1.8m left in cash at year-end though. How much does a Bentley cost nowadays?

@Jennys Apologies for getting too technical. I do a lot of business modelling at work and am very used to analysing numbers and getting to grips with new functional areas. I have also spent a LOT of time over the last couple of months looking at traffic surveys and so on. I appreciate not everyone has got quite as involved ( or is quite as nerdy!) To summarise in more everyday terms... Southwark are assessing how efficiently the junction works by using a software package called LinSig. In the report released on the web site they show the results of the LinSig modelling (carried out by a company called AECOM) for the different options they have put forward. Southwark are using these results to help justify their recommendation of option 8A. My points are: 1) AECOM have produced two reports using what should be the same base comparison data. In two of the three cases the base data has changed which means one of the reports is wrong. This undermines both reports and makes me question the competence of AECOM. 2) Southwark are making a misleading claim about how well option 8A works. In particular during the AM peak when East Dulwich Grove (EDG) traffic is much worse than the base scenario. 3) Southwark admit that option 10A gives the best performance in the morning peak. In the evening peak and mid-day, option 8A appears to perform better. But, I suspect they have arranged the traffic light timings for these periods to get the result they want. If they optimised the timings I expect option 10A would give best results in all periods 4) Southwark say the maximum distance pedestrians should have to cross a road is 12 m and use this against option 10A. However, their own option 8A has a diagonal crossing13.67 m, thus contradicting themselves. I believe that the AECOM reports and the conclusions drawn by Southwark are flawed. My conclusion is the traffic modelling and proposed junction schemes should be reviewed by a competent, independent traffic consultancy. Glossary Degree of Saturation (DoS) Measure as to how busy each road at the junction is. If greater than 100% it is oversaturated ( too busy!) Conway AECOM - Often referred to (by themselves and others) as AECOM. A joint venture between the traffic consultancy AECOM and FM Conway. I believe FM Conway are the in-house contractors used by Southwark for road building and maintenance work http://www.fmconway.co.uk/construct/ConstructSummer2013/files/assets/basic-html/page5.html see http://www.conwayaecom.com/about-us.html AECOM carried out LinSig modelling for the junction, published in February 2014, which was incorrectly used to justify the now discarded option 7. They have also modelled the latest options 8A - 11B. JMP - An independent traffic consultancy that was commissioned by Southwark to produce a junction safety report released in December 2012. JMP carried out a traffic survey, developed 6 options for improving safety and carried out LinSig modelling on them. Their Option 4 was used to apply for the TFL funding. Traffic Periods AM Peak 08:00- 09:00, Inter Peak 12:00- 13:00, PM Peak 17:00- 18:00

I have gone through the details published by Southwark supporting their option 8. It is not convincing and seems as though they are bending over backwards to highlight the positive aspects of Option 8 while doing all they can to bad-mouth Option 10 There are also several contradicts and discrepancies. Most significantly, the analysis and conclusions rely to a large extent on the LinSig modelling carried out by Conway AECOM. However, there is a glaring discrepancy between the AECOM report of Feb 2014 (used to justify Soutwark's Option 7 ) and the AECOM report of Feb 2015 ( Used to justify current option 8). I do not know which is correct but one of those reports is wrong. This undermines the accuracy of the modelling and the credibility and competence of AECOM. Even Southwark accept that Option 10 provides best junction performance in the busiest period with the highest traffic flows, the AM Peak. However Southwark claim that Option 8 (although worse than Option 10) gives similar performance to the Base scenario. Not true for EDG Westbound where the DoS figures increase by 44% and the Mean Max Queue increases from 14 cars to 45! Not sure what TFL will think of that. In the less busy PM Peak and Inter Peak the AECOM figures show Option 10 performing over capacity and worse than Option 8. From a common sense point of view this doesn't seem right and, when you look more closely this seems to be because the traffic light timings have not been optimised, leaving Townley Road branch significantly under capacity. I wonder whether Option 10 would again outperform Option 8 if they adjusted the timings for optimum efficiency? Since AECOM haven't provided details of timings used in their modelling we cannot tell. Much of the justification for the built out pavements is the maximum pedestrian crossing distance of 12m quoted by Southwark . However the diagonal crossing in Option 8 is 13.67m so even their receommended option doesn't meet their own guidelnes! I wonder whether the diagonal crossing should be removed; not only does it seem to contradict Southwark's guidelines but it leads to longer pedestrian green phase, highlighted by Southwark as affecting junction performance. The rationale came from the desire lines in the JMP report but a big reason for that is the appallingly bad layout of the existing junction with the zig-zag traffic pens. With a revised junction would pedestrians need the diagonal crossing? I haven't looked too closely at the option a's versus b's. However, the figures quoted by Southwark for vehicles turning right into Greendale (7 cars in 3 hours) are not supported by the formal JMP traffic survey ( 13 vehicles in 1 hours during the AM peak period) And of course, as pointed out elsewhere, we do not know how much extra traffic will be turning right into Greendale when the proposed JAGS car park there is developed. Given the errors, questionable findings and the biased conclusions I think the modelling should be reviewed by an independent traffic consultancy and an objective report produced before any decision is made. I have started looking at the "signalised cycle gates" and cycle safety aspects of the 2 schemes and looks like the same story but its is getting a bit late now...

The council have come up with a reasonable scheme that improves safety for cyclists and pedestrians (removing poorly considered safety features from the last "improvement") and maintains the efficiency of the junction without diverting traffic on to rat runs; that is option 10. Unfortunately they have chosen option 8 as their recommended option. This contains over-engineered, untested approaches and seems deliberately designed to create delays at the junction leading to similar effects as the discredited RHT ban. I need to look through the limited data they have so far released but I have already spotted a couple of discrepancies. So far they have released only the summary results of the LINSIG modelling, I hope they release the full AECOM report soon so we can see the assumptions and timings used. My current feeling is that option 8 is unacceptable and either 10a or 10b are the only ones that will work without causing disruption and rat-running.

Oh dear, The "waiting bays for nervous cyclists" in the old scheme 7 were bad enough, the "Signalised Traffic Gates" which replace them are even worse! These mean cyclists wait at a red light while traffic goes past, then go though to the Advanced Stop Line when the main lights are red. So they either: - get delayed, needing 2 changes of light to pass the junction - bypass the cycle gates by swerving out into the traffic and losing the benefit of the cycle lane - use the cycle lane and ignore the red cycle light What on earth is the design team playing at? Can anyone from the council provide examples of where either "nervous cyclist bays" or "signalised traffic gates" are being used at a similar junction, or indeed anywhere? (Google found ZERO results for "signalised traffic gates") If not, can they provide links to cycle guidelines or some sort of evidence base to justify them? Can they also explain which cyclists these gates are designed to help, the regular commuting cyclists (240 a day per JMP report) or the ones who may come when the possible Quietway may go through the junction. If it is based on the Quietway, what are the projections for the number of cyclists who will use these bays. Also not convinced about the 2 stage right turns. I wonder how many cyclists will know how to use them and even if they do, will they prefer to brave the traffic and turn right rather than waiting? At least these are an established design, though opinion about them is mixed. And they don't seem to have put cycle path markings or elephants feet to protect south bound Greendale cyclists.

2 possibilities? 1) The council are working hard to revise the scheme so they get an efficient junction which improves safety without a major impact on traffic and this is taking longer than expected or 2) The traffic planners are just tinkering with their botched scheme 7a (with the massive build outs and useless cycle bays which will obstruct the junction) and want to leave as long as possible before they let the local community know.

to BrandNewGuy "It was reduced to one lane to allow for that weird 'bay' for nervous cyclists." Agreed. But this was the Council's option 7 which was designed around a RHT ban. Their option 7a, with no RHT ban was essentially a fudged Option 7 and it was misleading and wrong for Matt Hill to quote 7a as the only (and inefficient) alternative at the DCC meeting. Remember that JMP's option 4, recommended in Southwark's junction safety review of Dec 2012, included most of the safety measures for cyclists and pedestrians. It also had a separate turn lane and good markings for traffic turning right and worked efficiently. This option was fully modelled by independent consultants and was used in the funding bid for TFL so presumably was acceptable to them. Option 4 did not have the "weird bays" which have no justification at all and will not be missed. It had smaller build outs, which I think will be better for coaches. Option 4 did not have early release for Greendale cyclists (not sure if they were legal at the time). These could be added and I think any effect on queues would be mitigated by the 2 lanes exiting Townley working more efficiently. Southwark traffic officers don't seem willing to listen to local residents and, if they dont, I am afraid we will end up with another bad scheme that will be rejected by teh local community. I hope I am proved wrong.

Andrew 1011 - First, thanks for lobbying against the RHT Ban. Second, you commented If the majority party local councillors had chosen to just vote against a council proposal backed and recommended by the council officers and advisor 'experts' then they clearly need to have appropriate reasons and justification My understanding of councils is that the ruling party (or their cabinet members ?) comes up with ideas and policy, is advised by the officers and then presents plans for consultation at which point opposition councillors and public can have their say. In this case either the officers or someone in ruling party should have pointed out,before it go to the stage it had, that the scheme was NOT recommended by professionals advisors and had NOT been properly modelled . Once the docs had been put on web site it took me about 15 mins of reading to work this out and I am not an expert. Anyway, we seem to have a reasonable outcome after a huge amount of effort from local volunteers. Hope lessons have been learnt for the Quietway\Southwark Spine consultation (or is that a "Stakeholder engagement" exercise?) ;-) btw this is not the "James Barber" forum, anyone can post on it. Perhaps all local East Dulwich councillors should? :-)

To James and all local councillors who have helped persuade Southwark council to drop the RHT ban and re-examine this misconceived scheme. Thank you for your support, whether openly on the forum (James, great to know someone was listening) or behind the scenes (presumably others). It is reassuring to see that local democracy can work. Trying not to be party political, but I think local councillors of the ruling group on the council have a greater responsibility to ensure schemes like this are stopped at an earlier stage and proper process is followed. I expect future Southwark proposals affecting this area (eg Quietways) will now be examined in much more detail so please get it right next time ( and the next...) Edited because I thought originally thought andrew 1011 was someone else...

Cllr Barber Is this official? I can't see anything on council web site Great news if true but shame it has wasted so much time (and presumably money) on a flawed scheme driven by a hidden agenda. Thanks for your help and support on this.

@Wulfhound, some good points I would like to comment on - Potential danger Despite the lack of reported accidents I completely agree of potential danger for South bound Greendale cyclists. But I think this can be addressed without a RHT ban which will move the danger elsewhere. - Support for current scheme Safe Routes to School(SRS) give inconsistent messages about what they support. Their web site and messaging is very pro the RHT ban but the only person from SRS who spoke at the SRS Open Meeting on Saturday suggested they were unhappy about RHT ban and had been duped by LBS. Sadly they bottled out of addressing concerns and are unable to clear the confusion of what they do and don't support. I suspect they just "want something done" and are not bothered by the details or knock-on effects. Personally I think the main agenda of cyclists lobby and probably Mark Williams (Cabinet member for transport etc) is to clear the way for proposed Quietway at this junction - Volume of cycle traffic on Greendale The traffic survey in JMP report (Covered 10 hours at end Sept 2012) showed 99 cyclists coming south from Greendale into Townley. 14 further cyclists came south from Greendale and turned left [6] or right [8] into EDG. In the same period 1,746 vehicles turned right from Townley into EDG. So, based on that survey Greendale cyclist traffic is low and vastly, vastly outnumbered by the right turning traffic. LBS have quoted potential of "100's of cyclists an hour" using Greendale due to Quietway ( or maybe Southwark Spine) but these figures are completely speculative, I have tried unsuccessfully to to find evidence based traffic forecasts for the Quietways, do you know of any? - "Gold plated" Option 7 I do not know who designed Option 7 and, unlike Options 1-6, it is not the result of the published safety reviews. It appeared as an option to be evaluated by AECOM Conway in their LinSig modelling at the request of the Council I am suspicious as to the underlying agenda of this mysterious design and I would prefer a design by an independent traffic consultancy working to transparent safety and efficiency criteria. In the absence of a new study I think the best starting point is JMP's recommended Option 4, updated for early start lights and also looking at some kind of Greendale green only phase. Given that the junction is busy for only a very limited period each day I really cant see why something cant be worked out.

NO NO NO NO NO to any pilot of Option 7 that includes a RHT ban which was not recommended by the safety studies, was thrown in secretly and, even though it has was drawn up by the council over a year ago, has not been properly modelled. Yes to a pilot of JMP's quick cheap Option 5 or revised and updated full Option 4 Given the Council's appalling behaviour in ignoring professional advice and hiding information I would not rely on anything they said or any traffic surveys they rig. I don't know whether this is the ruling group, officers or both; probably both. They are so incompetent they can't even rig the "Consultation" exercise properly without making stupid errors. The other organisations involved aren't coming out well either. Safe routes to School is totally discredited and Dulwich Society isn't looking too good either. Claiming to speak for wide community or members respectively but in reality reflecting the views of a small clique. Which is a shame because they may have some good ideas but are acting arrogantly and undemocratically The best thing about this whole sorry process is I, and a lot of my neighbours, now realise we need to keep an eye on these proposals or self appointed, undemocratic groups will make decisions in our name. So please come along to the DCC meeting on 28 Jan and maker the Councillors listen. Whether this be be enough to overturn the Tooley street apparatchiks I don't know. A final warning to us all, beware of the Leopard! http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/

to BNG Agreed there are more dangerous junctions based on accident records, eg EDG\Dulwich Village, EDG\Gilkes, Townley\Lordship Lane. The proposed RHT ban will send more traffic through all these junctions as well as along Lordship Lane (accident black line) which is why I am so against it. However, I also agree there is a potential danger to south going cyclists on Greendale. This is largely due to the Council's previous remodelling of the junction, no maintenance of road markings and their refusal to implement any of the low cost improvements of the safety reviews in 2007 and 2012. JMP's Option 5 combined with a short "Greendale-only" green phase is a cheap,quick solution that would make it much safer for cyclists. If you have ?250k of TFL money to spend then JMP's Option 4, together with early start lights (and some proper modelling) would make it much safer and nicer to use for both cyclists and pedestrians. Neither of these options have a RHT ban to displace traffic to dangerous junctions or through residential rat-runs. Then make sure that JAGS don't mess things up by overrunning Greendale with traffic due to their proposed new car park!

TO bawdy Nan Messages overlapping, hope it is clear which one I am reply to ! I had a work commitment and couldn't make the Saturday meeting but a couple of things you said surprised me. - Quietway Are you sure that Southwark are taking full responsibility for delivering the E&C-CP Quietway? This is not the impression given by TFL web site. Is there confusion between this Quietway and the Southwark spine? - Safe Routes Their web site is very clear about their full, unqualified support for the RHT ban. "We support junction improvements for the following reasons:...Banning the right turn for vehicles would allow bikes to get across safely from Green Dale....". See http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/east-dulwich-grovetownley-rdgreen-dale.html Their email to their supporters was equally clear and unqualified. So, if they didn't give impression at meeting they supported RHT ban they are at best inconsistent, at worst duplicitous. On the other hand, if they have changed their mind about the RHT ban they should put a statement on their blog\web site announcing this and clearing up the confusion.

@Bawdy Nan "Green Only" phase for Greendale Southwark claim to have released all of the documents related to this scheme. AS far as I can see none of the options modelled include a "green only" phase for Greendale so they haven't modelled it. They should have done. Early Start for cyclists The early start for cyclists is included in Option 7 so doesn't adversely affect operation of junction. As per my post above, combining an early start with Option 4's proper road markings for cyclists and right turning Townley traffic, will give a safer junction without moving danger elsewhere Animosity Don't have time to respond at length. Any answer will features arrogance, naivety, absence of accountability, hidden agendas, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, back room deals, blanket criticism of anyone pointing out flaws etc

The scheme being consulted on is Option 7 of the "Technical Note" produced at the Councils request by AECOM Conway in Feb\Mar 2014. However the Traffic Consultants JMP recommended 2 Options in their report of Dec 2012. Option 5, was a "quick win" costing under ?10k which could be put implemented as a short term solution. JMP's main recommendation was Option 4 which has the following features\benefits: - significantly improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists - includes specific provisions for safety of South bound Greendale cyclists -has better provision for cyclists on EDG than Option 7 - improves operational efficiency of the junction - Does NOT require a banned RHT The JMP report is much more credible and evidence based than "Technical Note" by AECOM Conway used by council to justify their current Option 7. The JMP report: - was commissioned by Southwark to investigate improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians - is prepared by an independent consultancy - is based on a formal traffic study with proper methodology - has full LinSig modelling (software for modelling junctions controlled by traffic lights) based on the traffic study - provides clear recommendations for options(s) to improve safety of the junction Astonishingly, the AECOM Conway "Technical note" does not meet ANY of these criteria. The scheme is being funded by TFL. Option 4 is almost certainly the "Shovel ready" scheme mentioned in the Council's application to TFL in July 2013 (I can't be 100% sure because the council are trying to hide it). If so the Council must give reasons why they supported Option 4 in July 2013 but not 6 months later. Supporters of the Council's Option 7 have characterised anyone who queries the RHT ban as not interested in cycle and pedestrian safety. As a 4\5 day a week cycle commuter with children who walked across that junction for many years this gets me very angry. Organisations such as Safe Routes to School are blindly supporting Option 7 without questioning the flawed assumptions and ignoring the increased danger at other junctions and local roads. They should instead ask themselves if they are acting in the best interests of their members and the safety of the (much) wider local community. Option 4 is not perfect. In particular there are no early start lights for cyclists, possibly because they were not legal at the time. But a revised and up-to-date Option 4 would make a much better start point for a proper consultation going forward. We could then have a sensible scheme to improve safety that is much more likely to attract support across the community. The councillors can even use this as evidence they have listened! A win-win for everyone!! (edited to remove comment about Sustrans who apparently are not involved with the Quietway)

@TownleyGreen You said "Sustrans is the sustainable transport charity who speak for cyclists, walkers and public transport" To me, Sustrans is the organisation that has been awarded a "multi-million pound delivery contract" to implement the "Quietways" in London. I cycle to work every day, walk a lot and use public transport in preference to other forms. Sustrans doesn't speak for me because they haven't asked me. Can they justify their claim? Who is Tim Warin, does he live locally or have any knowledge of local issues? Look forward to you response....

Thanks for that Holy Moly, This sheds some new and very interesting light on the whole scheme. The Safe Routes to School people are clearly very worthy and well meaning. But they are also arrogant, naive and emotive. IF their statements are correct they have been duped by the council over this scheme, but, given their close relationship with JAGS they surely can't deny they knew about the effects of the new Music School In an earlier post I set out some questions which need raising at the SRS open meeting this afternoon. My questions about traffic studies, rat-running and safety of neighbouring junctions will probably be answered with "don't know". I remind readers of the question which can and should be answered by SRS. - what are the details of the junction improvement supported by (Dr) Laurie Johnston, chair of SRS, in the Southwark bid to TFL on July 2013 - why are SRS supporting a bid that transfers traffic from a relatively safe junction used by pupils at a small number of schools to more dangerous junctions and roads used by a far wider community of schools - what relationship does the chair of SRS have with JAGS school and parent's organisations - why aren't SRS supporting one of the other options for the scheme that significantly improves safety for cyclists and pedestrians without the RHT ban and is much more likely to be supported by local residents? - Do all the 13\14 local schools represented by SRS support the scheme? I assume they will have representatives prsent It would be good to get a statement by the Dulwich Society on this scheme. I hope they have someone at the meeting who can do this.

I understand the meeting has been organised by Tim Warin for SRS and he may be chairing it. Tim Warin is the "Bike It Plus officer for Southwark,employed both by Sustrans and the Dulwich and Herne Hill Cycling to Schools partnership" Separately I see that Sustrans has a "multi-million pound delivery contract" with TFL to support rollout of the Quietway network So, a question to add to my previous ones. - Is the proposed RHT ban anything to do with the Quietway that may go through this junction? If Tim is employed or funded by Sustrans isn't there (yet another) conflict of interest in him chairing a meeting to discuss a scheme that affects a project his employer has been given millions of pounds to help roll out?