slarti b

I am definitely against earthquakes (or avalanches)in Dulwich and West Norwood. Where can I sign up for the campaign against these odious tectonic plates?

Many thanks to the Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (SRS) for organising an open meeting to talk through the "ongoing local confusion and concern" about the proposed EDG\Townley junction scheme. Per their blog the SRS team has been working on this junction for many years, "many engineers drawings have come and gone" over that period and they very actively support the option put forward by the Council. I only became aware of this scheme a few weeks ago so I am sure they will be able to explain details that I have missed. I look forward to them clarifying my confusion on points such as: - who exactly are SRS; they speak on behalf of the local community but don't give any names on their web site - what are the details of the junction improvement scheme they supported in the Southwark bid to TFL - can they assure us that Southwark Council has properly modelled the effect of the scheme, especially the banned Right Hand Turn, on the surrounding network - why are they 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 studies have been carried out on the safety impact of the displaced traffic that will end up rat-running through (often narrow) residential streets that are used by local school children and cyclists. - how will the junction be affected by the increased traffic created by JAGS's plans for a new music school and car park on Greendale - does the chair of SRS have any relationship with JAGS - Final Question (added as Edit). 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? Looking at the documents released end of last week I noticed that the Southwark bid to TFL for the funding was based on the assurance from SRS that "the widespread and active commitment of our schools, parent network and local societies to improved cycling will ensure full cooperation and well organised support in the implementation of any funding received". That's OK then, wonder why Southwark bothered with consultation exercise ;-) I am concerned that a large amount of public money ( that's you and me paying) has been granted based on assurances of local support from an unrepresentative (Edited) pressure group. I will be contacting TFL to find out what measures they took to validate this application and supporting statements.

Mmmm..... Yet another grand scheme which makes politicians look and feel good but IMHO have serious flaws. I thought Quietways were meant to follow direct back-street routes, through parks, along waterways or tree-lined streets If so why send this Quietway though 3 busy road junctions and the centre of Dulwich Village? I certainly dont consider Calton and Turney Roads to be back streets. Based on the current Townley Road\East Dulwich Grove fiasco the scheme will ban right hand turns that cross the Quietway, eg Calton\Court Lane into Dulwich Village North, Turney Road in to DV South and similar at Croxted Road junction. I can see extensive measures needed to make Calton and Turney suitable since they are narrow. I am also puzzled by the "consultation" It is titled "stakeholder engagement" and seems to be asking for comments about particular points on the route rather than a proper consultation about a defined scheme. Will this lead on to a proper consultation once proposals are drawn up or is it just another EDG\Townley shambles. So, definitely worth registering comments otherwise in a years time you will be presented with a scheme that has been "supported by the local community" ( actually non-local cycling zealots). What are the odds on parking ban in Turney Road to allow a dedicated cycle lane, One way in Calton Avenue, banned right turns everywhere? What is rationales for these Quietways anyway? How many "less confident" cyclists will want to go from Elephant & Castle (actually Waterloo, it bypasses E&C) to Crystal Palace? Finally, there is quite an overlap with the Southwark Spine, are these schemes being considered jointly?

Those 2 docs were added at the end of last week, I think 8\9 Jan. I am pretty sure all the others on the site were already there. I can see why they have not publicised this. The documents they have NOT put on web site include - the plans of the "shovel ready" scheme referred to in the document and submitted as part of this bid. I wonder if it included a banned RHT? - The final bid which they say will be submitted in Oct 2013 Also, as a tax and rate payer it looks a pretty flimsy justification to spend ?220k of public money!

Cllr Barber Happy New Year and thanks once again for being a local politician who is engaging on this issue on the forum. I assume your comment about criticising "two very worthy and successful groups" (presumably Dulwich Society (DS) and Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (DHHSRS)) was aimed at my post last night. My main criticism is of Southwark for naming DS and DHHSRS in support of the council's option when it seems they didn't know about the banned right turn and may actually have supported a different option. I would like to see an official statement from DS and DHHSRS as to which option they support and their position on the effect of the proposed RHT ban. If "worthy" organisations claim to represent their members or are acting on behalf of the local community I think they have an obligation to behave responsibly. DS seems to be acting cautiously (though I am concerned about a possible conflict of interest there). But DHHSRS was aggressively canvassing support for an option which has not been properly studied and which contradicted one of their other campaigns; I dont think that is responsible. I am asking members of DS and DHHSRS to ensure any concerns they have about the RHT ban are sent to these organisations so the boards\committees can truly reflect what their members think. That is involvement not criticism. I will also be encouraging people to attend the DCC meeting on 28 Jan but I don't know how effective that forum is. I will certainly consider applying to join the DS Transport sub-c'ttee. However, I already run a small business, chair a local sports organisation and sing in a community choir so not sure if I can devote enough time. Perhaps when (if) I can afford to retire ? ;-) To end (sorry) on a critical note I saw that the Southwark Cyclists chair Andy Cawdell was canvassing support for this scheme on the Croydon Cyclists yahoo group. http://tinyurl.com/ow5uuev. SC may be doing some good things as a lobbying pressure group but this confirms my view Southwark should not treat them as local stakeholders for this particular consultation . EDIT in italics

Holy Moly, Have just been reading the article you mentioned and spotted the comment below Helen Poyton, headteacher of Dulwich Village Infants' School, said: "The safety of our pupils is our first priority, and we don't want to end up with even more congestion on the streets the children use to walk and cycle to school. Junctions along Dulwich Village are already very crowded and we can't support any option that makes them worse." The council make a big play of involving 3 "local interest" groups in their discussions: Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists, Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (DHHSRS) DHHSRS From comment quoted above at least one local school shares concerns about banned right hand turn . The DHHSRS blog on this subject claimed they didn't know about the RT ban until consultation started. They are separately concerned about rat running which will will be massively increased by the RT ban. Big contradictions there. Dulwich Society They have mentioned the "controversy" in their Newsletter but seem to be sitting on fence. I heard they supported the scheme based on the recommended Option 4 of the Dec 2012 JMP report (no RHT ban). But this is different from the Option 7 pushed by the council. Did they know about the proposed ban when they offered support and, if so, does the Dulwich Society committee really support the current option that will impact so much on local residents? Southwark Cyclists A tiny pressure group who cannot claim to represent local interests. They can't even find enough members to fill the 4 places reserved for them on the Southwark Council Cyclist steering C'ttee! Their concern is not local safety but reducing traffic on a proposed Quietway (no matter if it rat runs through local streets) So the 2 (actual) local groups seem not to have known about the proposed RHT ban. If so, the council shouldn't be quoting them in support. Calls to action Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School members Even the council has now admitted the proposed option 7 will lead to increased rat running which, as you say, is dangerous for children and adults. Ask your committee why future provision for the proposed cycle Quietway (5?) is so much more important. Dulwich Society Members If you have concerns about the knock-on effects of the RHT ban on the local roads then contact the Dulwich Society to ask them to reflect this. Caution The Chair of the the Dulwich Society Transport Committee is Alastair Hanton. He is also the self appointed, non-elected, "council liaison" representative for Dulwich of Southwark Cyclists. Is he acting for the interests of local Dulwich residents or the Southwark cyclists pressure group? I suggest you raise this with the Dulwich Society chariman,

Someone just pointed out to me that sometime yesterday (the last day of the "extended" consultation) Southwark sneaked out some new documents on the Web Site. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4031/townley_road-_frequently_asked_questions The Main document, dated 18 Dec, is headed "Frequently Asked Questions" but it really sets out the objectives (rather different from previously set out) justifications for the council scheme that they wish to bulldoze through and then an assessment of the effects of the scheme based on a rushed traffic survey. It has clearly been put together in a hurry without being properly checked (look at spelling of Carton, sorry Calton, sorry CARLTON avenue) and I assume it is a rushed attempt to address the well founded criticism of this process. There are no dates on the traffic maps and no description of the methodology used. No LINSIG traffic modelling. A few key points on these so called FAQ's - They conclude that the displaced traffic will rat-run through streets such as Gilkes, Dovercourt, Melbourne, Woodwarde etc but don't think it matters - A "paramount" objective is to reduce or remove potential conflict with the increased number of cyclists on the proposed Waterloo-Crystal Palace Quietway. (ie nothing to do with local issues at all! and obviously no indication of expected numbers,detailed plans, effect on previous modelling etc) - Removing traffic from the junction, (even though it rat runs through smaller residential streets) - Key "local interest groups" involved in this scheme are Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists (given they only have 10 active members for the whole of Southwark they cant have that many in Dulwich?) and Dulwich\Herne Hill Safe Routes to School. No mention of local residents associations etc. I have been arguing for rational improvements to the junction based on logic and evidence. I have responded to the consultation in detail pointing out the flaws in the studies and conclusions. I have been wasting my time. The Council and the pressure groups have drawn up the scheme based round a banned right turn and then selectively chosen evidence to support their choice. To avoid scrutiny and discussion they have released documents only after considerable pressure, as late as possible and, in the case of this "FAQ", without publicity. This is a disgrace. When I have time I will go through the FAQ's in detail but is there any point? It seems the politicians will be making a decision on the scheme they wanted in the first place. To paraphrase Ian Hislop, if this is democracy I am a banana. If you are concerned about the scheme then I encourage you to lobby your local councillors, express your concerns and ask whether they support or oppose the right turn ban. Members of the Dulwich Society should contact the committee for their opinion and what they contributed to preparing the scheme. I can remember no mention of this in the last 2 magazines.

Wulfhound AS a cyclist I like your idea of main roads for heavy traffic and minor roads for access only. But I cant see this happening without a complete re-working of the whole road network which will not happen any time soon (if at all). So I don't think it realistic to say, "lets ban the Right Hand Turn and not worry about displaced traffic rat-running because in an ideal world we would stop them going through the minor roads." I take your point about "keep your wits.." junctions but I still think that with advanced traffic lights, proper markings and maybe a right turn filter, this junction could be made much safer for Greendale south bound cyclists. Shame the council has not acted on previous recommendations to make it safer. So, why not make the junction safer for cyclists and pedestrians, reduce the dangers of rat-running cars and get a consensus by adopting one of the many options without a banned RHT? It might not fit your ultimate vision but it would be a big improvement.

Cllr Barber First, thanks for responding and engaging with the discussion. Also, I hadn't realised how close your previous connection with Southwark Cyclists It wasn't meant to be a personal attack! But, I disagree with some of your responses and it is interesting to see the questions you avoid. 1) Southwark Cyclists (SC)- (comments are based on their published minutes http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/about/meetings-minutes/ ) Not sure where the 1,000 members are, maybe they are LCC members living in Southwark or Dunwich Dynamo riders but they are certainly not active participants in SC. Attendance at Nov 2014 AGM was 9 ( yes NINE) people. Average attendees at monthly meetings over past year is 10.6. Like you I see no problem with steering group having 4 cyclists as members. I DO have a problem with those 4 seats being allocated to 40% of the current active members of Southwark Cyclists. I am a local Southwark resident who has cycled to work most days for the last 14 years, how can I get a place on the steering group? 2) Southwark Planners Christmas Party You didn't know about this? Well you didn't attend the SC AGM on 12 Nov ( not may people did) and presumably you didn't read the minutes. I have. But please answer the question. Is it right for a "lobbying pressure group like SC" to send attendees\be invited to such an event, particularly since the event may have been publicly funded. Personally I thinks this stinks. 3) Bad Adminstration I run a small company. If I managed it as the council has managed this project we would be out of business. Ignoring sensible proposals you have commissioned, imposing your own option justified via a flawed report, ignoring advice and then expecting people not to notice leads to massive increase in cost and disruption. As I said in another post the irony is that the Council's undemocratic, dogmatic and blinkered approach delays the scheme and jeopardises the safety improvement it claims to be seeking. 4) Unanswered questions Your response to any of these would be welcomed :-) - why hasn't council actioned earlier recommendations for safety improvements - what is role of TFL in drawing up\evaluating the scheme - has Council released all documents relating to this scheme, particularly the TfL application and the justification\rationale behind Option 7. - what is status of Southwark Cyclists with council - what is involvement of Southwark Cyclists in drawing up\ reviewing Option 7.

Zebedee Oddly enough your Option 1 was recommended in the June 2007 Mouchel report commissioned by the council. It shows how much they care about safety that they ignored it...

Cllr Barber Leaving asides merits or otherwise of the scheme I would welcome your comments on the following points concerning how the council has handled the process. Sorry to put this on you but I am getting very little response from other official contacts and you seem to be the only councillor actively engaging on this issue. "Southwark Council has a safety audit which says the junction isn't safe". In the 9 year period 2004-2006 and 2007-2012 ( 2006-2007 not in reports) there were 5 "minor accidents", none of them involving south bound Greendale cyclists, the ostensible reason for the RHT ban. The 2007 Mouchel report recommended improving the right turn road markings (including Right Turn arrows), The JMP 2012 report had a low cost (?8k) "quick win" option 5 including proper right turn road markings. If it is concerned about safety why didn't the the Council implement these? "TFL money has provided the money to upgrade this junction". As far as I can see, a TFL application is not mentioned in the web site documents. I have asked for the "Feasibility Study" mentioned in the press release about the TFL money but, so far, the request has been ignored. There is a big time gap between the JMP report\recommendations in Dec 2012 and the council putting forward their own option 7 in Feb 2014. The council has released nothing to justify or back up their option and the title of the document they have released (technical note rev 2) suggests it is an annex to a bigger document. What is TfL's role in drawing up and evaluating the scheme and are they aware of the incomplete analysis of the effect of the proposals and concerns expressed by residents? Bad administration I am not a legal expert so I do not know what constitutes maladministration. But there are aspects of the process which I think are bad\questionable administration or have potential for conflict of interest eg. - Selecting the option suggested by the Council based on a technically flawed report by an inexperienced external consultant. - Ignoring recommendations to examine the effects of the Councils preferred option - Apparently using an employee of the company recommending the Councils option to act as principal contact point for consultation on that same Option - Releasing the supporting information about the proposal at a very late stage in the consultation ( last day of official period!) - Possibly not releasing the full information? - Representatives from a cycling lobby group attending the Council Planners Christmas party ( Hope you had a good time last night !) Southwark Cyclists I also have concerns about the involvement of the self styled " Southwark Cyclists" in this scheme. From their AGM and previous minutes they appear to be as lobby group of 10 people but they are entitled to 4 seats ( ie 40% of their membership!) on the Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group. Can you tell me their status with the council (apart form going to the planners Christmas party) and what involvement they have had in reviewing or drawing up the councils own Option 7?

To?wulfhound You said "And you're damn right life's precious......Which is why I support these changes, and if the right turn has to go for it to work as designed, so be it. If it causes problems on other streets - as it may well do - those streets should be looked at in turn with similar measures adopted" I completely support your concern about safety. But the point is that the right turn does NOT have to go to to make this junction safer. 6 or 7 other options have been proposed which do this without the ban. What measures would you adopt for the streets likely to be affected (Gilkes, Dovercourt, Beauval, Melbourne Grove, Cowell Rd). Most already have traffic calming in place. More bans that move traffic elsewhere? In 5 years time, after massive disruption, increased accidents in affected streets, lots of protests etc we would probably hear the council proposing to re-instate the Right Hand turn (at massive expense) because the measure they put in place in 2015 made the junction safe! If measures are needed to counter effect of the right turn ban they should be considered now as part of the junction improvement scheme. But presumably that would take time and cost a lot more. So, the irony is that by trying to push through their preferred option without proper evaluation, the council is jeopardising the whole junction improvement and increase in safety! On a personal note, The main justification for the RH ban is to protect south bound cyclists on Greendale. My guess is that a right turn ban would divert evening\night traffic to do right turns at Dulwich Village crossing of ED Grove which has similar issues for South bound cyclists ( I ride over it virtually every evening\night). So we would end up with increased danger for cyclists at a different junction, but without the protective measure. This just doesn't make sense. Mikeb The only reference I can find via Google for "Cyclist waiting bays" is cycling web site saying "what on earth", and lots of disparaging comments! If a cyclist is not confident to be alongside moving traffic then I can't see how they would be cycling on the road at all. This leads to another question. These bays appeared in the brief, flawed, "technical note" of Feb 14 introducing the councils Option 7 and 7a. Clearly there had been a lot of work and changes since the JMP report of Dec 2012. The council have released no documents covering this period or explaining supporting rationale for their fully worked out Option 7. I have asked for this and received nothing yet.

Chris Mascord....... Comments and requests for informations on this proposal were to be addressed to Mr Chris Mascord, email address [email protected] But guess who he actually works for ? Well, per linkedin he is: "Principal Consultant at AECOM" AECOM are the consultancy who recommended the current scheme in their Feb\Mar 2014 report based (IMHO) on flawed assumptions and no assessment of the knock-on impact of the scheme. I am sure everything is above board but surely it is a massive conflict of interest for the consultation exercise on a scheme to involve (or be run by?) an employee of the same firm that has recommended the scheme. Especially when the recommendation overides well thought out, previous proposals?

I have had a first review of the documents which make interesting reading. I can see why the council was reluctant to release them Leaving aside the masses of technical appendices I have found 2 key documents 1) "East Dulwich Grove/ Townley Road Junction Safety Review (4.28 MB PDF)" This is a thorough investigation of the junction for the council by JMP associates dated Dec 2012. They evaluated 6 options to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. NONE of these options involved the controversial banned right turn. JMP recommended Option 4 with the "low cost" alternative Option 5 providing some quick wins and improved safety at a cost of about ?6k. 2) "?East Dulwich Grove Technical Note (1.48 MB PDF)" This report is dated March 2014. The council asked Conway AECOM (a joint venture with the Councils in-house roadworks contractor?) to evaluate 2 additional options: Option 7 including a Right Turn ban and Option 7a, similar to 7 but without the ban. The report is nowhere near as thorough as the JMP, no mention of site visits etc. It seems based purely on running scenarios though modelling software and (per Linkedin) seems to have been prepared by a recent graduate less than 6 months out of University! The modelling for Option 7 included the significant assumption that the existing Right Turn traffic would find alternative routes ( "eg Lordship Lane") to access ED Grove. This assumption is clearly flawed since some traffic would end up on this junction via right turns at Dulwich Village, rat running up Gilkes, turning via Gt Spilmans and U Turns on Greendale. In addition the report is very clear that the wider impact of the right turn ban ban (affect on other junctions, impact on surrounding network, where banned vehicles would go) has not been assessed. To my great surprise the report (on the assumption "most of the benefits are intended to be provided to cyclists") recommends Option 7 !!!! This is the option the council put out for "consultation". However the report also says "a further study should be undertaken to examine the impact of the right turn ban to the wider area". The council has not provided this and presumably it has not happened. My take on this whole process is - FACT In 2012 Council commissions JMP report that comes up with sensible options for improving safety ( better cycle tracks, improved road marking etc) including a cheap quick win option. - FACT(as per Southwark web site) Sometime in 2013 the council commissions a feasibility study on the junction. This feasibility study has not been released. - SPECULATION Council decides to ignore study and recommendations of JMP and come up with its own option (probably influenced by unrepresentative, self-appointed minority pressure groups such as Southwark Cyclists) so they can get scheme funded by TFL. - FACT Nov 2013 council issues a press release announcing funding from TFL cycling to school fund for the junction http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1449/285000_of_funding_awarded_to_support_cycling_in_dulwich_and_herne_hill - SPECULATION Council commissions another report setting terms of reference to justify their "chosen" option - FACT Council commissions another report to examine an additional option and variant - FACT Feb\Mar 2014 Completed report is sent to council based on flawed assumptions, ignoring effect of significant part of option but recommending the council's suggested option. Recommendation of further study ignored by council. TO Cllr Barber. Please tell me if my speculation is incorrect, otherwise sounds like Charles Notice's cynical view is true! Actions? These documents show that the concerns expressed by many in the local community are fully justified. If you have already responded to the consultation I suggest you respond again with additional comments in the light of these documents that have only just been made public. I think it is outrageous that the Council has not carried out any study of the effects of their preferred option on surrounding roads, especially since it is recommended by their own report! Remember that, although the Consultation has not been officially extended the consultation period, they have publicy sais they accept comments up to 19 Dec.

@Robert Poste's Child Well I live locally and, as far as I am aware, I have not been "approached formally" by Southwark until receiving the details of a fully worked out scheme 2-3 weeks ago with no backing evidence. When did this process you refer to happen? Perhaps it resulted in the mysterious, unpublished feasibility studies that we have been promised but have not yet appeared? re the letter you mention. I have received one which may (or may not) be the one you are referring to. It seemed pretty well balanced to me, explaining concerns about both the scheme, the lack of backing information and the apparent desire of Southwark to push the process through before providing evidence and impact of the proposals. In fact it doesn't even ask people to object "this scheme will impact us and the note is to make sure that we're all aware and respond" On the other hand, I have also received an email from the Dulwich Safer Routes to School group which quotes vague generalisations, makes unsubstantiated assertions and finishes with the misleading statement "It is very important to register support for this scheme or the junction will remain unchanged and dangerous" To me THAT is a zealous approach to getting your own way! Finally my OED (admittedly the concise version) defines junk mail as "unsolicited advertising matter sent by post". I don't think the letter comes into that category.

Hopefully I managed to get my points across within 500 characters but had to resort to text speak! Seriously, it is ridiculous that the on line consultation is limited in this way. Surely it is much more efficient for the council to receive comments electronically, unless of course they have no intention of reading them anyway. Any news of the release of the feasibility studies promised "imminently" by Mr Des Waters of Southwark Public Realm? We are 2 days away from the end of the consultation period and still have no background information. Reminds me of the "Consultation" last year on building on the Turney Road playing fields. The meeting to give (sorry consider) planning permissions was scheduled BEFORE the end of the consultation period. Great advert for local democracy....

Cllr Barber, Well, I replied to the on line consultation, saying I supported overall objectives but had concerns about right hand turn. Then I found I had maximum of 500 characters ( including spaces!) so had to reduce my answer to about 80 words. In the end I dropped the section about supporting many aspects of the scheme because I thought putting objections on record was more important. Quite frankly this 500 character limit is ridiculously low, but hey if it reduces the volume of democratic comments the council have to put with then I suppose it achieves its objective!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two approaches. One support the proposals but highlighting the few bits you don't agree with OR > object with specific reasons - hopefully adding the features you do support. > If losing the right turn from Townley Road is a show stopper for you then I'd recommend you take > the latter route. Cllr Barber, Many thanks for the prompt response that confirms what I suspected. I will object but comment on my support for most of the measures apart form the banned right turn. With a combination of advanced lights for cyclist, some careful traffic light tuning and decent road markings ( none of which exist now) I am sure the junction can be made much safer for cyclist without banning the right turn. However, Southwark council's response (as voiced by Des Waters) to the concern expressed by the local community has not impressed me. They have NOT extended the consultation, only explained they accept submissions up to a week after the deadline. He has announced they may at some time make public the feasibility studies but there is no date on when and we are 3 days away from the official consultation date finishing! I asked for the feasibility study over 2 weeks ago and had no reply. No wonder voters are cynical about politicians!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My lot really make a point of listening to all views in the party and taking into account other > views before taking any Southwark wide stance. It can be painfully democratic, Cllr Barber, as someone not used to local "democracy" I am really puzzled as to how these decisions are made. As far as I can see the proposals have been drawn up by Southwark in conjunction with pressure groups, not necessarily representative of the local community or even the constituency they claim to represent. I do not know what will happen to any comments or feedback from the consultation, but I do know very little information is available in the public domain backing up proposals or the assertions made by some of the special interest groups. see http://tinyurl.com/muuzykd for an example of this. I realise that the council is now controlled by Labour so your party is not in charge of the process but can you tell us how the "Consultation" process will work and what will happen to comments made? > WRT these proposed changes I'm for them generally but specifically against the banned Towny Road > right turn. Overkill in my opinion based on the evidence given. I completely agree with you on both these points. In terms of the consultation exercise what is the best way to register this, Object and put these as comments?