Tessmo

Three further thoughts: 1. If Townley Road is reduced to one lane, and the big pavement build-outs go through as planned, cars turning right will be delayed by cars turning left, and vice versa. So there will be huge queues backing up Townley Road and Calton Avenue. This is likely to mean that cars will instead use local residential roads to bypass the junction - so we're back at exactly the same point we would have been if the right turn had been banned, with traffic diverted on to narrow local streets. 2. The huge pavement build-outs may mean that coaches can turn from Townley Road into EDG, but they won't be able to turn easily. They are, therefore, more likely to go down Calton Avenue, which is a cycle route and proposed Quietway. 3. If EDG westbound is reduced to one lane, the 37 bus will get stuck behind any cars turning right into Green Dale - and, because of the new parking arrangements at JAGS from building the new music school, there are likely to be quite a few cars doing this. Is TfL aware of this?

I wonder what a Saturday session is? Holding my breath...

I guess we'll hear on Monday what the brand-new scheme for this junction is. Or maybe we won't. I'll drag a chair into my hallway so that I can closely monitor my letterbox at all times...

According to the timetable you posted @hopskip, consultation on the new option starts this Monday 16 February. Any idea what's going to happen and how it will be done?

Thank you @hopskip. I like the look of Bristol's consultation process, particularly: "Be well targeted and reach out to seldom heard groups." Which I don't think Southwark has been doing... I looked back at @Dadof4's post on February 9. Compare his summing-up of Southwark's approach with Bristol's seven principles...

@Rodney bewes Yes, again, I think you have a good point. I see what you're saying. But shouldn't our elected councillors be making sure that those who find it less easy to speak still have the chance to make their voices heard? The noisy ones - the ones who push themselves forwards - may not, in fact, be speaking on behalf of the community. Who knows? Their noisiness might even be used (cynically) by those who have other, more political agendas. I believe the best thing is a published process on Southwark's website, saying exactly how consultations are conducted. Then consultations should be widely publicised through ward councillors. And if ward councillors are NOT making a strong commitment to getting the local community involved in these consultations - perhaps they are not doing their job properly, and we should take them to account.

"In my view, Southwark have lost their way, really lost their way, on open, transparent and balanced input to their plans." Well put, @hopskip. And yes, @first mate. I agree. Time for consultation on the consultation process, and some much-needed reform. @Rodneybewes Again, I can see what you mean. But I still think that if we have a system in which only those who are well known for being active become part of the consultation process, we are somehow missing the point. I don't want to fall out over this, because I think we both want an open, democratic system. But I am worried by the power and influence of unelected lobby groups. We elect councillors to take action on our behalf, and I would rather they, and not self-selected activists, took action on our behalf.

I?ve been thinking a lot about what you said, @rodneybewes. I can see what you mean, and it?s a good point. But is it OK for the council to pay more attention to people who can be arsed to make a fuss? Is that democracy in action? (I?m not talking particularly about speed limits here ? I?m making a general point about everything that the council does or doesn?t consult properly on.) Not everybody has the time/resources/confidence to set up or run a special interest group ? especially if you have to set yourself up in opposition to other groups that are already vocal, well-regarded and well-established. Also, does the council check that anyone speaking on behalf of a particular group has the mandate to do so? You could end up with just a few mouthy individuals affecting Southwark policy borough-wide? I feel the council should make much more effort (through local councillors, if that?s the best way) to make sure that individuals know what policies are being discussed, and how to agree or disagree. And yes @first mate, I have no idea what the Gazette is either?

Thanks @Woodwarde So the Council sends out a limited number of printed leaflets about a particular consultation. But "At the same time, electronic copies are sent to a standard list of consultees...or those that constitute groups that the council considers will be interested in the proposals. To the standard list, we will add, on request, other organisations such as Tenants and Residents Associations as we see fit." What this boils down to is that a) you might see stuff on the council's website, or b) you might get a leaflet posted through your door, or c) you might hear nothing about it at all, but will find instead that groups of people you don't know and have never heard of, who might claim to have your best interests at heart but who have never talked to you or asked what you think, are somehow more involved in a consultation that directly affects your local streets than you are yourself. The council could choose to 'consult' only those groups of people who will agree with their proposals, and leave out all the pesky residents who might disagree. Or have I got this wrong?

Am I right that local councillors are really important when it comes to consultations? It's obviously not OK for Southwark just to put stuff up on its website and expect people to see it. And I don't think Southwark can leaflet every house (although it could do a better job of sending consultation documents to the residents/businesses directly affected by new proposals). Not everyone's online, so emails/social media won't solve the problem, and not everyone reads newspapers either. So the only thing left is for ward councillors to make sure they pass on news about consultations by whatever method works best. Does this happen? Or don't councillors have the budget for it?

Three things worry me about Southwark?s recent consultations. The first is that the online ones seem to be open to everyone ? not just those living in Southwark. I?m thinking particularly of the Cycling Strategy map where you could pin up little comments. You had to register with a username and email address, but you could have answered from anywhere ? Glasgow, Cardiff, New York. Does that really count as ?consultation?? What value does Southwark Council put on the responses? The second is how the word ?consultation? is qualified all the time. When the consultation on the changes to the Townley Road junction first started ? with the glossy brochure and map and online form ? it all seemed quite official. Recently, it has been described as ?informal? (like some kind of chatty social gathering), and we discover that there?s another stage, which is ?statutory? (when they put laminated notices written in teeny weeny writing on lampposts). All this probably makes sense to those on the inside. But for everyone else it?s confusing. There should be published guidelines on the council website, with standard terms, so that we all know where we are. The third is how special groups of people get involved in the inner circle. (JDR brought this up, and I agree.) Who decides which groups count? Are there rules? Can anyone join in?

Andrew1011 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Purplejellybee Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Would rather this read "....without > COMPROMISING > > SAFETY of cyclists or pedestrians elsewhere in > > Dulwich" > > > I'd hope that could be taken as read but I suggest > you email the Southwark officer concerned, who > seems to be Chris Mascord email: > [email protected]. You could also > copy in the Dulwich area councillors, regardless > of which party they belong to. > > I certainly want a scheme that is safe for > everybody and all road users, and without negative > impacts elsewhere, whether they be pedestrians, > cyclists, drivers or bus passengers. Andrew 1011 - How do you know it's Chris Mascord who's in charge again? Is that definite?

Andrew 1011, I went all the way back to the beginning of the thread and found that you posted on 23/11 and 24/11. So you're quite right, you were at the party right at the beginning. But you don't seem to have been around much recently - maybe you were in the kitchen having a few beers. I'm really confused why you suddenly got so cross. But that's what happens at parties sometimes. Good outcome, as you say. And whatever you contributed to make it happen, WELL DONE.

Andrew 1011, calm down dear. You're a bit late to the party here. Zebedee has been measured, sensible, rational and impartial throughout. Which is what we like. We like keeping things calm and civilised on the EDF.

If the NRT has gone, that?s good news. But it?s only the start. What we don?t want is Southwark rushing into a new scheme without first talking to the local cyclists, pedestrians, parents and residents who use this junction every day. Local cyclists have good ideas about how the lights can be phased. Or where the stop lines should be. A lot of them believe the biggest problem is that drivers turning right from Townley Road into EDG look up, see what they think is a T-junction, and believe they have right of way ? which they don?t. Better signs? Road markings? Lighting Green Dale so that it looks like a road? Ask cyclists and pedestrians what they feel about the idea of pavement build-outs that widen and slow down the turning circles that coaches have to make. Ask residents in Calton Avenue, or the cyclists who use this route, what they would feel if the build-outs made coaches reluctant to use EDG at all. Ask local residents from the Dutch Estate what happens when cars drop off children in Green Dale. Ask bus-users whether they feel it?s a good idea to reduce EDG going west to one lane if there are cars turning right into Green Dale to park. Ask children what they feel about the sheep pens and the islands in the middle of the roads? Ask the local community. We all want better safety for cyclists and pedestrians. And we know this junction well. Safer Routes called a meeting to discuss the original proposal last Saturday. How about Southwark now calling a meeting to discuss how to make this junction work? You know, there are even some traffic engineers in the local community who have some pretty good ideas?

No, Bawdy-Nan, that's enough. No one wants a trial of something that's potentially dangerous. It doesn't matter whether it's a trial, or permanent - if it puts pedestrians and cyclists at risk, don't do it. I agree with Safe Routes on this: all junctions must be safe for local schoolchildren.

Surely you don't do a trial of a major traffic change without at least some attempt to model it first? It doesn't matter whether the change is temporary or permanent if you haven't considered the potential implications for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in the wider area. So far Southwark Council has put out for public consultation an option that's about as evidence-based as a fairy tale. Why? Time to listen to the local community and come up with a proposal based on facts, not fantasy.

Open meeting organised by Safe Routes tomorrow, Saturday, at St Barnabas Parish Hall at 3pm if you're 'confused' or 'concerned' about the junction proposal...http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/

James, as I said before, Heber, Goodrich, St Anthony's and the new East Dulwich primary school on the old police station site would all be affected by the right turn ban from the Townley Road junction, because Southwark's thinking so far is that Lordship Lane would take a lot of the displaced traffic. Children from the area round Townley Road do go to Heber and Goodrich, and have to cross Lordship Lane. Children cross over Lordship Lane at the junction by the Library to get to St Anthony's, too. The point is that any plan that affects traffic flow must consider ALL the children in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. Of course the children travelling to the independent schools come from a much wider area. But let's not forget the children walking to local state primary schools.

I don't understand the Dulwich Schools Map that's just been added. If that's all that's been used to think about the implications of this junction, no wonder things have gone so wrong. Where's Heber? Goodrich? St Anthony's? The new school planned for the East Dulwich police station site? Much nearer to the junction - and much more likely to be affected by displaced traffic - than Dulwich College. Don't these primary schools MATTER?

Thanks Scootingover. OK, can I check I understand all this? 1. Councillor Mark Williams, who has written the foreword to the Cycling Strategy, will be the one who makes the decision on the controversial junction change at Townley Road that is?part of the Cycling Strategy. 2. On the last day of the public consultation, when it was all too late, local residents were told that the junction change was?part of the Cycling Strategy. 3. The Cabinet member for parks is Councillor Barrie Hargrove. He used to do Councillor Mark Williams? job. He will be taking the decision about the controversial Quietway/Cycle Superhighway through Dulwich Park which is? part of the Cycling Strategy. 4. Southwark Cyclists, Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School, and The Dulwich Society are described as ?key interest groups?. They don?t always make the minutes of their meetings public, or say who their committee members are, they are not elected by the local community, and Alistair Hanton is a member of all three. Despite this, they are?part of the Cycling Strategy. Anyone got a rubber stamp?

There is an update posted on the online petition (https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction) 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, SE24 9HU where local councillors will report back on the public consultation. There will be further debate, so please come and make your voice heard. If you would like to help with leafleting local roads before this meeting, please email [email protected]. Please also continue to ask local residents and businesses to sign the online petition.

Good afternoon, EDF. WARNING. There is a rumour that Chris Mascord will only consider responses to the consultation if they are written on the formal consultation questionnaire or via the feedback form https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1166 on the website. Everything else (letters or emails to Chris Mascord, petitions, online petitions) may not count. This is a public consultation that just gets better and better...

Good morning, EDF. There?s an online petition to Chris Mascord at Southwark Council here https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction. 79 signatures so far. Please sign up if you feel you can support it, and email the link to neighbours and local businesses. The deadline for responses is tomorrow, Friday 19 December

For anyone opposed to these "improvements" but in favour of better safety for pedestrians and cyclists generally, there is an online petition here: https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction. Please sign and forward the link to other local residents who may be affected. The consultation period ends on Friday.