hopskip

The 28th Jan DCC Meeting provided some detail for a revised consultation and Councillors and the Southwark planner agreed to ensure transparency and full engagement with the community. No specific method for engagement was provided on the night. The results would be brought back to the 17th March DCC meeting and timing was said to be extremely tight to enable work to take place over the summer. The message below was sent out the next day (its original circulation list is unclear) and is now being circulated more widely, so posted here for general information. The details of a new Option 8 (which was already devised by Southwark according to the timeframe quoted below) was not provided on the night of the DCC meeting. This was a prime opportunity missed or avoided. _____________________________________- Please find below the timetable officers have agreed with the cabinet member for a revised Townley Road option. Please feel free to share this with the SRTS group and indeed other contacts as you see fit. Our proposed timescale is as follows: Draw up and model new option 8 ? complete by 30 January (2.5 weeks) Assuming it works - Draw up new public consultation material ? 13 Feb (2 weeks) Consult ? 16 Feb to 6 March (3 weeks) Report to DCC ? 17 March - only 7 working days from close of consultation so we would need to bring a verbal update to the meeting given the lead in times for report preparation. This would be permissible as this is a consultative report rather than a decision making one. Formal ?IDM? decision by Cabinet Member ? mid-late April Advertise statutory orders ? April Consider any objections (if received) ? May (further report to Cabinet member required) Implement ? late July/August (school summer holidays) As you can see, the timetable is extremely challenging but just about achievable ? bearing in mind the lead-in times or statutory requirements for some of these stages ? although clearly consultation will need to be a short, focussed period seeking feedback on one option rather than a lengthier engagement exercise. Although I accept that risks remain about this kind of approach, I think they are much reduced - since the consensus I am hearing from both the meeting on Weds and from ward Councillors is that as long as the option ?works?, and delivers the bulk of the cycle benefits, yet retains the right turn, that this is likely to find general support in the community ? since it is clear from our consultation that the vast majority of those opposed are focussed only on the right turn ban. If we did not meet this timetable then I do not think implementation this summer is possible, and on that basis the funding is likely to be withdrawn. This is not to say that further funding couldn?t be found in the future, of course, but this particular funding stream is very unlikely to be extended further past April 2016. I trust this is helpful. Kind regards Matt. Matthew Hill Public Realm Programme Manager Environment and Leisure Southwark Council

Southwark News provides a summary of the change of plan. Many perspectives expressed here but Southwark News suggests: Council U-turns on ridiculous plan. See attached.

Whound - clear again. txs The Cycling Strategy 'consultation' looks like a wish list or more generously, a best guess of theoretical routes. No one but the originating few will have a clue what the Quietways vs Spine vs Highways are - and it is not easy to find out. It's a rag bag assembly of good intentions. The interactive map will give very limited insight (as few will reply) into what might work in theory but it will have no scaleable local input. That all takes place piecemeal after the fact and during the chunked up consultations. And then it may fall apart at the critical stage if the consultation process is poor or the modelling is shown to be flawed. Then follows a preliminary sanity check called the statutory consultation. Is this the yellow notices pinned to lampposts that would generally go unnoticed? I am perplexed by the packaging as a Cycling Strategy and a Consultation. I would describe it as a well meant blending of a whole range of separate plans but a strategy it is not. And Consultation - it is not. The popular understanding of this from a formal body such as a Council implies diligence, detailed planning and wide response gathering. Followed by impartiality in assessing the feedback. This 'Consultation' is just a messy posting of information but the concerning bit is that it may be repositioned as something else. And that is where it looks like Southwark planners are in a mess and surely cannot expect people to have confidence in their processes. I am struggling to get with their purpose and despite trying to give them benefit of the doubt - I think Southwark Council are stirring a hornet's nest in terms of the credibility of their methods. It is a shame, but it seems to be so.

WHound very helpful - now I can 'start' to try to make sense of this. I can see the Southwark Consultation on their 'Cycling Strategy' link http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy Transport and Streets - Cycling Strategy Consultation CONSULTATION ending 1 Feb 2015: It has a rather peculiar questionnaire (the consultation ending 1st Feb) with options such as I don't cycle because I would get messy hair. It also has an interactive map that seems to have Quietways, spine, superhighways all included. This is confusing. How will the Quietways consultations happen - are they TfL?. The post that started this thread is not a consultation in fact but an interactive map. Or does this constitute a consultation? Beats me...... time for sleep cycles

I am trying to understand or find a simple explanation of the origins and connections between: London Cycle Superhighways Southwark Spine Quietways LCNs Southwark Cycling Strategy (Southwark Council) - What are their origins/history; what organisation originated them if this is identifiable, etc - If and how they overlap at all Apologies if this is obvious to everyone else!

In my experience of modern, transparent committees with appropriate governance and constitution - they will have a remit to consult out with the membership of their organisations. Jury out.

Slarti b Agree there is a conflict and I understand Dulwich Society has been asked about this by a number of people. Not sure what action is to be taken, if any - so it is worth making this point to them strongly. It is not easy to find out the people running DulwichSafeRoutes (at least from their website, AboutUs is silent). However - if the same people on this link are involved (http://www.hernehillforum.org.uk/news/school-crossing-patrols-saved-southwark) then they also have a presence on the Dulwich Society Transport Committee. So another question for the Dulwich Society Transport Group - and in due course Southwark.

James thank you for that offer and do you have any insight on: >>What is the procedure to respond to questions put to the Dec 3rd meeting but not answered at that meeting?

Tessmo wrote : >>There is an update posted on the online petition (https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction) Tessmo, thank you for the reminder of the petition and that it is still live for us to record support before the next Council meeting. Also the prompt to attend the next meeting and its date: >>UPDATE There is a meeting of the Dulwich Community Council at 7pm on Wednesday 28 January 2015 at Herne Hill Baptists Church, Half Moon Lane. Councillors: I know already quite a few of us plan to attend the meeting. So questions for you. When do the minutes of the meeting on 3rd Dec 2014 become available (it?s now a month) and who is responsible for getting these out in a timely way? What is the procedure to respond to questions put to the Dec 3rd meeting but not answered at that meeting?

The new Q&A document added on the final day of the consultation, changes tack. The original consultation framed it: Local stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at this junction, particularly during morning and evening peak hours. Pedestrians have been observed to cross the junction diagonally (not using the staggered crossing facilities due to excessive waiting times) and conflict has been experienced between cyclists using the junction and traffic turning right out of Townley Road. The key aim of the proposals is to significantly improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians at the junction, whilst ensuring that there is no adverse delay to traffic on East Dulwich Grove. Following pressure for the evidence to be published, which showed two minor incidents in the past 5 years, the new Q&A document posted on the final day (19th) of the consultation introduced the following: The need to safely cater for anticipated future significant increase in cyclist numbers going through the junction between Townley Road and Greendale on the established cycle route that is to become a ?Quietway?. It seems that Councillor Mark Williams has encompassed this in the Cycling Strategy which you can listen to on the link: (listen to minutes 27-30 for the East Dulwich Grove statement). This was a presentation to the Southwark Oversight and Scrutiny Committee on the 10th Nov - well before the Townley Consultation was released. What was the reason for this to go on to YouTube; there does not seem to be anything else from the Oversight Committee on YouTube. Be aware that while we focus on Townley, the Cycling Strategy is also out for consultation until the 1st Feb. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy And to entice you - a chance to win ?100. And don't worry about the 500 character limitation - this is lengthy questionnaire for you to answer. This Townley consultation is far from transparent and there is no clarity on the process for the consultation nor any sense that its impact on the community is going to be taken into consideration. Has anyone conducted an FOI request?

Summary of new background documents from Southwark Council http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road (main consultation page). See the bottom of this link: "For detailed background information please view our documents on previous junction safety reviews and the preferred design option. " A. For detailed background information please view our documents on previous junction safety reviews. There are two main documents - the background to the current consultation and an older report from 2007; the rest of the documents are appendices to the first document, the ED Grove/Townley review. Indications of numbers of incidents etc are included (2 minor ones over the past 5 years at ED Grove/Townley) and of particular note is that only options 1-6 are proposed. There is a very simple option at ?8k and the rest are ?200k and above. See: ? East Dulwich Grove/ Townley Road Junction Safety Review (4.28 MB PDF) ? Site Safety Report for Traffic Signalled Junction of East Dulwich Grove with Townley Road and Green Dale (309.42 KB PDF) B. And the preferred design option This fast forwards to two further options (7 and 7A) where the banned RH turn is introduced. The document states that no impact assessment on traffic transfer has been conducted. There is no explanation as to how these further two proposals were developed nor the assumptions underpinning them. 1 The two reports seem to use different option numbers , which makes it difficult to coordinate them. 2 The ?junction safety report? has 6 options, all seem to allow a Townley Road (TR) right turn. This report includes result of a traffic survey, giving similar numbers to the spot survey conducted by a local Dulwich Civil Engineer, for the traffic coming out of TR. a. Option 5 ? Quick Win option ? costs @?8k. It encompasses a removal of the guardrails, paint on the road, and Trixi cycle safety mirrors all round. This option is recommended. b. The other five options (of 1-6) all involve building out of the pavement, and cost more than ?200k. i. Option 4 - Preferred option ? costs ?212k. It is not very clear just how this is different from the rest of the five. Possibly because it includes ?trixi ? safety cycle mirrors ( convex mirrors on the lights to show lorry drivers etc any bikes waiting inside them), and ?elephant markings? ( special markings of bicycle routes through the junction. ). It is recommended to follow on to Option 5 , to improve ?junction? geometry? and ??pedestrian and cyclist amenities?? ii. Option 6 introduces the diagonal crossing. There is little in the way of detailed discussion of the pros and cons and the cycling aspects seem very vague ? for example, no numbers quoted, 3 The technical note Revision 2 is stated to be specifically to examine two additional options 7, and 7A. The above preferred Options 4 and 5 and Option 6 are not mentioned at all. However, the previous option 5 quick win option now appears to be option 1 ? ie no changes to the kerb line. The staggered crossings are converted to straight across crossings ? it is not clear if there are still islands of any sort. a. Option 7 introduces the idea of no right turn out of TR. ( it is not mentioned for Option 7A or any of the other options) See the following comment from the text which makes significant un-modelled assumptions. ?It is important to mention that Option 7 has been modelled assuming that the existing right turn flow will stay off Townley Road and will find alternative routes (e.g. Lordship Lane) to access East Dulwich Grove. Therefore, the total flow along Townley Road will be significantly lower in Option 7 than other options, including Option 7A. The impact of the diverted traffic in the surrounding network is not examined in the LinSig modelling.? b. Summary and recommendations These seem mainly to be concerned with the traffic capacity of the junction. The conclusions are not entirely clear but it seems that Option 1 ( ie the ?quick win? option) is the only option that gives operation for the current traffic ( ie including the right turn)?well within capacity?. Option 7 with the right turn ban also operates well within capacity; but that is explained mainly by the right turn ban, and is therefore misleading. The report states the wider impact has not been - but needs to be ? studied. c. There is nothing about costs in this report. The cyclists benefits are only vaguely referred to and there is very little about pedestrians. 4 On the basis of these documents the conclusion must be: - that Southwark has not studied the no-right turn impact at all. - there is very little in the way of convincing evidence about the (presumably) aimed-for improvements to conditions for cyclists and pedestrians ? seems to be largely taken for granted. 5 These documents do not lay out any clear reason why expensive works should be done here. There is no clear statement of need nor do they offer any clear evaluation of the benefits to all the users of this junction in the preferred solution. 6 There are a lot more questions to be answered. However, the underlying message from these reports appears to be that the less is done at this junction, the better.