Scootingover

Done

I hope this raises the needed funds to support an alternative proposal backed with expert opinion. The Southwark approved one will not work and they've been told that but don't listen. Great idea to commission this work.

pr5ined Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James > > Is there an email list available so that we can > further issue emails to all councillors and > relevant cabinet members re this proposal? pr5ined, Active Cllr support on this came from Helen Hayes (who described the proposals as a sledgehammer to crack a nut), Andy Simmons, Michael Mitchell and chair Jon Hartley. Helen clearly a good point of contact as both local Cllr and MP. EMAIL to Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood and Councillors: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] There is an earlier and separate thread on this matter. See Dulwich Community Council: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1649080 This current thread from JB smacks of political/self interest. What we want is all our Cllrs to understand that this is a real and concerning issue and work individually to determine where double yellow lines are warranted vs gratuitous. Contact them all - don't put your eggs in any self-promotional basket.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark want this so it will as you say be last > and will get passed through on the nod. > Doubt Barber and co will say a word against it. > Doubt many people will even know it is happening. The detail for agenda item 17 says: The Southwark Constitution sets out that the Dulwich Community Council will take decisions on local non-strategic matters. These include the introduction of road markings, the introduction of waiting and loading restrictions, the setting of boundaries for consultation on traffic schemes and the determination of objections to traffic management orders that do not relate to strategic or borough-wide issues. If our Councillors do not draw breath on this one, and seek justification and evidence, then question why we need them.

The 10m is Highway Code guidance and not legislation. 10m would apply on very fast roads and limited visibility where cars pull out into fast moving traffic. On quiet residential roads now restricted to 20mph? Highly questionable. These proposals recognise this and indicate 7.5m. Still too much, if necessary at all. Make your voice heard to your Councillors before the DCC as this decision is made by them.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Council has a better discussion with residents because they were not consulted properly and are not supportive. This is not the 50-70 something landscape by any means. Where is the evidence for that? On the bus the other week, I was held up because residents had barred the main road by moving the barriers. They said that they were fed up with being blocked in when others on the buses could move easily and they wanted to make their views known.

Good to see that there has been consideration of all feedback and the accompanying traffic monitoring numbers. While some roads will remain closed and so continue the experiment, the majority will be re-opened. There is therefore a new experimental TMO as noted below. The Lambeth website is down so I cannot provide a link to it. Extract: Having examined all the evidence presented in the eight-week review report, I have taken the decision to re-open Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove from Wednesday 25 November. Padfield Road and Calais Street will remain closed under a new Experimental Traffic Management Order. The road closures were part of a wider vision to improve the public space in Loughborough Junction, make it a safer and more pleasant place to live and help the area become a destination in its own right, rather than a busy through road for traffic to and from central London. That ambition for Loughborough Junction is clearly shared, even though it appears that a majority of residents remain opposed to particular road closures. It was important to trial this ambitious scheme as an experiment so we could monitor the impacts closely. Having reviewed the evidence and listened to a wide variety of people in the area; it is clear that changes are needed but that the ultimate vision remains. I hope to utilise the passion and strength of opinion that has been demonstrated on all sides over the last few months and bring people together to help guide the future of Loughborough Junction. Over the coming weeks I will invite representatives from local businesses, ward councillors, community groups including LJAG, Loughborough Estate Management Board, Loughborough Estate TRA and the newly formed LJ Road Madness to join me and council officers on a steering group to begin the design work for public space improvements. We will start with an open mind and welcome all ideas and contributions; there is money to spend from Transport for London, which if we work together and get it right, can make a positive and lasting difference to Loughborough Junction. The experimental nature of the road closures made it difficult to communicate the wider benefits and vision for the area, and signage in some areas at the start of the trial was either unclear or ignored. Also, by focusing communications on the residents of Loughborough Junction, road users who travel through the area from further afield felt uninformed which undoubtedly led to confusion in the early stages. However, it is clear from the review that more people are making journeys by foot and by bicycle through the area and I sincerely hope that continues. Eight weeks was not enough time to provide any empirical evidence regarding response times and the Ambulance Service and Police did not oppose the continuation of the scheme, but the recent formal objection raised by the London Fire Brigade and anecdotal reports of increasing response times cannot be ignored. That is why we will reopen Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove. The process of removing signs and road markings will take a few days so to avoid confusion all restrictions will remain in place until Wednesday 25 November.

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not my photo - But I believe they were still in > place yesterday. OK so the photo is not a great help. Anyone actually know the facts on the barriers and penalty charges and what is in place today? I'll be via that way on public transport (because this is the mode of transport that I rely on) at peak times when the impact is very severe and so can check myself in any case. I get why some (but certainly not all) cyclists are in favour. I can see why others are not and the impact on public transport users and residents/passers through. This development was not supposed to be for cyclists.

And again interesting as the LJ development was NOT supposed to be driving the cycling agenda but I can see your focus. messageRe: Dangerous junction for bikes: Peckham rye and Nunhead lane new Posted by davidk Today, 10:17AM The Southwark branch of the LCC has been campaigning for segregated tracks down that side of the Rye and on into Rye Lane to hook with Burgess Park and the various quiet routes down there. That would solve your problem but it has met predictably stiff opposition. I'm sure your support would be appreciated: [southwarkcyclists.org.uk]

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed scootingover. > > And at the moment we only have usable roads for > motor vehicles. So what's to be done? Davidk - your photo does not show the barriers. Have they been removed?

Am I mistaken that the trial ended and the blocks removed? The days of evaporation are long gone. Just gridlock moved around. Safe for cyclists but we need usable roads for all Please.

Agree. Cyclists need to be safe and catered for but so do the rest of road and public transport users. Stats used again to justify........... BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those are very naughty stats, Blah Blah. > 1 cyclist on one bike = one journey. > 70 people on one bus = one journey. > 300 people on one train = one journey.

Utterly bonkers - Southwark and TfL. Not an ounce of sense between them but enough bravado and self interest to spend public taxes and be unaccountable for the failure to deliver. We need a blended plan for a variety of transport to suit all. Cycling is only for and will only suit a small percentage. Welcome it, make people safe, but don't make it an excuse for failing to deliver proper public transport. I use bus, train and tube. Walk loads and will run if I can. No bike. Let's get some balance.

what on earth where they doing?

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So many straw men in .... > > Finally, is Loughborough Junction considered a > cycling scheme at all? I mean - I know they're > leaving it open to bikes, but it seems mostly > about pedestrian space & ultimately > regeneration/gentrification (delete as applicable > depending if you're for or against). It doesn't > really join anything to anything, > cycle-route-wise, and isn't a Quietway or Cycle > Superhighway. Calling it a cycle scheme seems like > a way to guarantee opposition & create a load of > animosity towards people on bikes. Take a look at the Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) tweets perhaps. Seems pretty focused on cycling. LJAG ‏@LJAGgers1 12h12 hours ago Hackney highest level of cycling in Ldn. Blog from cyclist who has recently visited Holland. http://hackneycyclist.blogspot.co.uk/ . Can this happen in LJ?

Linkedin summary: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-mascord/36/a39/b3

Strange. RCH is simply a member of the community and not a Councillor. On what basis is any person prevented from making their points and being given equal treatment and airtime. DCC- operating some bad practice and perhaps discriminating?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I spoke to some children today who use this > junction. They think it a vast improvement for > them. They're walking rather than cycling but > still this is some good news from all that money > being spent. So what about speaking with any adults, making any independent and objective observations, speaking to the lollipop guy who knows the junction inside out etc. Let's get some facts on the operation of the junction and stop these ineffectual interjections.

Today should be the day Townley re-opens (partially)? Apart from a hugely increased and severe left hand turn out of Towney to ED Grove, there look to be little by way of cycling benefits and the LHT must be more problematic for cyclists. The cycle path is just drawn on the main highway as before. As large vehicles have to turn left here for access to schools then this is starting to conflict with the new TfL agenda to stop left hand turns for lorries. It hardly looks possible in any case but let's see that for real tomorrow when the coaches are back running. The diagonal crossing is there of course........... Also, posting this from an adjacent thread on Loughborough Junction because a ludicrous comparison has been made about the evaporation of traffic at Townley. Just FYI and before the Dulwich Community Council Meeting on the 9th Sept (7pm, the church at ST BARNABAS, Dulwich Village)in case the same statement is made. Re: No through route at Loughborough Junction Posted by hopskip Yesterday, 05:58PM James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plenty of evidence that GENERALLY creating new > roads generates more traffic. M25 classic example. > Closing roads leads to traffic evaporation. People > constantly make decisions about whether they can > be bothered. Make it easier then they are and vice > versa. > > It sounds like davidk is suggesting trial > experimental closure - for whatever reasons - > resulted in traffic evaporation. This doesn't mean > it isn't a pain in the proverbial for some. > > The closure of Townley Road hasn't led to dire > traffic levels along Lordship Lane/Melbourne Grove > as far as I'm aware. > > People are amazingly smart and adaptable. Remarkable misuse of facts. But why? This statement is misleading and should be ignored. As everyone knows and as the consultation showed, term time am and pm are the problem traffic times at Townley due to 4 private schools directly at the junction and the associated car and coach traffic. Which is precisely why Southwark and all our Cllrs knew the work had to take place over the summer months. And now the works are overrunning then we don't have to take anyone's view. It will be self evident. No doubt we might see a Cllr on Melbourne Grove counting the traffic. Or perhaps the Cllrs will just evaporate.

Thanks Wulfhound. Not great then. Commuting cyclists compromised by travelling in narrowed lanes midst queuing traffic. Worse than before. Cyclists should avoid it if it is exposing them. Any views on it once open would be helpful.

Could be. Is this why TFL are trialling somewhere else. The diagonal crossing has been spoken about in the press by JAGS from the very start. If you are a cyclist, what do you make of the junction layout now and how you feel using it?

If you are Wolfhound, it depends whether you have chosen to live on a residential or a main road! Irritation aside - but it did read like that. I think we want to be respectful of road and access ethics wherever/whoever. Neighbours on main roads are not some strange beast - we want to chat and move safely like anyone else.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What is wrong with avoiding a main road - or > taking the most direct route to your destination? > As long as one isn't speeding, or driving in a > dangerous manner, it is perfectly legitimate. > ............ > Closing them to through traffic - and thereby > opening them to people. To kids. To neighbours > chatting. To cyclists. To family pets. To actually > being able to leave your car outside your house > overnight without some speeding numpty knocking > the wing mirror off. Bring it on, I say! Move house. People living on main roads seem to be a disadvantaged group in your scenario! https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/general-advice-144-to-158 Driving in built-up areas 152 Residential streets. You should drive slowly and carefully on streets where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars. In some areas a 20 mph (32 km/h) maximum speed limit may be in force. Look out for vehicles emerging from junctions or driveways vehicles moving off car doors opening pedestrians children running out from between parked cars cyclists and motorcyclists. 153 Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.

James Barber said: >> A reputation was requested and net the requirements. They presented a document that also included a petition within it from a majority of Melbourne Grovd residents. However as noted on an earlier thread: > Southwark's guidelines say that a petition can > only be presented to a community council for > consideration if it's signed by more than 250 > people and must contain 'a clear and concise > statement covering the subject of the petition and > on each page of the petition' (for obvious > reasons). The document submitted to the last > Dulwich Community Council met neither requirement. > It contained instead a long statement of concern > about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne > Grove and a request that a barrier and other > traffic calming measures be considered. This is > signed by five people and is what's called a > 'deputation request'. Attached to this are further > pages (with no statement at the top of any of > them) carrying the signatures of 133 people. > > It's apparently common for 'deputation requests' > presented to community councils to be backed by > lists of signatories. However it would be a > mistake to call such a document a petition in > favour of a specific measure. Agree. I was at the meeting. The AUDIO record will show that none of the Cllrs discussed the 'petition' and whether its format conformed to that specified by Southwark. The wording of the deputation was formulated afterwards and so those signing will not have seen that, nor had the benefit of a statement at the top of the page that they were signing. The list of signatures is at best an indication of support for a review of traffic calming measures. It would be misleading of the DCC to create the impression that there is demand, need and support for a barrier only. I do hope that the DCC checks that the public record of the meeting (its minutes) is clear on these points and that the CGS funding was allocated to review traffic management more broadly. One of the cllrs (Andy Simmons) was very vocal about the need to review a wider area and the impacts of placing any traffic calming measures on Melbourne. The audio record will show this - let's hope that the meeting minutes are also clear.

I wonder if the residents of Court Lane received the leaflets. Most of Court lane was missed during the original Southwark leafteting regading Townley. The proposed diversion map will not be the route that traffic takes. Have a look at the route if you have received it. If Calton is completely closed is traffic really going to travel up Court Lane - to the junction with the South Circ and then back along Lordship? I can think of many other roads - between Court Lane and Lordship Lane that will be be used. Locals know the roads and Sat Nav has no respect for Diversion notices. Green Dale work commenced 22 June according to the notice.