Forest Hill Road/Colyton Road Roadworks

[Renata Hamvas]

I received this today:

Dear Cllrs,

Forest Hill Rd / Colyton Rd-Highway Improvement works

I write to notify you of proposed traffic signal and highway improvement works at the above junction, week commencing 11 February until end of February.

You may recall that the Council consulted residents in March 2012 on whether to retain or remove the temporary traffic lights introduced at this junction to allow access and safety for articulated Lorries during the Thames Water Victorian mains replacement works on Colyton Rd. The consultation responses showed that majority are in favor of retaining the traffic lights.

The aim of these works is to make the signals permanent and ensure it conforms to TfL?s guidance on traffic signal junction with pedestrian phase.

The main features of the works are:

? Improvements to the traffic lights at Forest Hill Rd/Colyton Rd junction to make it a permanent feature.

? Resurfacing the junction

? Improve the public realm outside the areas shown in the views below

We have short notice from TfL that they would like to move on to this site week commencing 11 February, following completion of signal works at Peckham Rye/East Dulwich Road.

If we do miss this slot we may not be able to get TfL?s contractor on site until end of March due to their loaded work programme during this time of the year.

Moreover the above works need to be completed within the 2012/13 financial year

Tentative Works Programme

Week of 11 February-Existing traffic lights are removed by TfL?s contractor and replaced with temporary 4-way lights

11th -22 February-Civil works

Week of 25 February- TfL?s contractor installs new traffic lights, temporary lights removed from site

Traffic management -4-way Temporary traffic lights with pedestrian push bottom (similar to that at Peckham Rye/East Dulwich Rd junction)

We would notify residents and businesses of the impending works.

We would try and expedite works and minimize any disruption to traffic.

[kristymac1]

I think this is a good thing - use that junction numerous times throughout the day (both as pedestrian and driver) and the current set up seems to work. Hopefully short term disruption for long term gain...

[neilson99]

Temporary lights? What is this about? I've lived on Colyton for 3 years and on Ryedale for 2 before that and they have been there ever since?

What,s the betting that the ED Road/Peckham Rye works over run and it takes 30 mins to travel what should be less than a 2 minute journey?

[dbboy]

PLEASE NO, NO, NO to the works at present.

The work at the Peckham Rye /East Dulwich Road junction is causing enough delays already coupled to the current water leak repair works at the top end of Forest Hill Road. Another set of works at FHR/Colyton road would make Peckham Rye Common to Forest Hill Road/Honor Oak Park and Road one huge traffic jam with traffic going nowhere and queing to ### knows where.

And as for the temporary lights, that's what they were suppossed to be until the council officers decided not to remiove them. Just give us back the zebra crossing as it was prior to the Homestall road works and get rid of those traffuc lights. Traffic would then flow much more freely and speed up the 63/363 than it does at present.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi all,

I have been informed the works at the Peckham Rye/Forest Hill Road will be completed prior to the Colyton Road/Forest Hill Road ones starting (I suspect it's the same team doing the works). The ones at the top of the Hill are emergency water leak works (water was pouring down the hill!), I'm trying to find out how long this will take.

Dbboy, there was a consultation about the lights, I went and spoke to many residents on roads in the vicinity of the lights about them. From what residents said to me and from the results of the consultation, the vast majority were in favour of making the temporary lights permanent.

Renata

[the-e-dealer]

They are temporary. Introduced for major Water Works some years ago. Have had 1 near miss and one hit at the Junction before lights and fully support retention of lights.

[neilson99]

I still don't understand how these are classed as temporary. They've been installed so long, how exactly will new "permanent" lights be any diffrent to the ones we have now?

"Moreover the above works need to be completed within the 2012/13 financial year" sounds like Southwark Council/TFL wanting to spend its budget before the end of the financial year so it doesn't get it reduced next year.

The note you posted Renata also states that local residents will be notified - is your posting here our official notice, or will that be delivered through a different channel? If so, do you know when? It would also be good to undnrstand why Southwark/ TFL don't apply the same notice periods to its residents that they require and expect from 3rd party utilities. Under TFLs own guidance, I understand that works of more than 10 days of disruption would require any utility to give TFL 3 months notice, so could we understand why they don't live upto the same standard with its own works?

Given the complete nightmare that Southwark/TFL brought at down the road and the fall out from that, would it be poissible for them to trial their 4 way way traffic management proposal before they started to dig anything up, so that they could re-think if this did create similar levels of delay and disruption and create some diversions around local roads that would ease congestion?

[nimby]

Because they are a temporary measure to deal with large waterworks vehicles that's why the east / west phases are separate.

[TonyQuinn]

The water works at the top of the hill have been a boon. Please make that permanent. Fewer cars able to bomb down Forest Hill Road. Can you Ms Hamvas provide us an update on what is being planned up there. Sure you saw a car went straight into the gates of Francesca Cabrini School. Luckily, it was a Saturday and not 8.30 on a Monday morning.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi Neilson, letters have gone out to residents. My posting here is not official as such, I just decided it would be useful to post it on her! I shall raise your comments, about the issues following the other works. I think it would be quite difficlut to divest all the traffic, buses etc. Yes Tony, I agree with you, the top of the hill is problematic, It is quite tricky getting something done about it as it sits on the borough border and it requires economic and personnel co-operation between two councils.

Renata

[TonyQuinn]

I appreciate you are doing your very best Ms Hamvas, but failure for a couple of councils to cooperate is just not good enough. Will the transport/road safety committees wheel that old excuse out when something bad happens, as I'm afraid, it inevitably will. I spoke to a teacher at the school about it and she said the school has made its views known on a number of occasions but nothing gets done. A for effort Ms Hamvas but an E for achievement. I urge you to raise this as a major concern to the powers that be. You will have all the appreciation of all residents round these merry parts.

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Neilson, letters have gone out to residents. My

> posting here is not official as such, I just

> decided it would be useful to post it on her! I

> shall raise your comments, about the issues

> following the other works. I think it would be

> quite difficlut to divest all the traffic, buses

> etc. Yes Tony, I agree with you, the top of the

> hill is problematic, It is quite tricky getting

> something done about it as it sits on the borough

> border and it requires economic and personnel

> co-operation between two councils.

>

>

> Renata

[neilson99]

Thanks for the posting and responses Renata, your efforts are appreciated.

No notice received here on Colyton as far as I am aware - I would be interested to understand why this is and

2. What the notice period standard that Southwark Council/TFL Highways works to in these situations (if any).

3. What mitigation is planned for deliveries to local shops on Forest Hill Road, including the Co-Op store which seems to have large trucks outside a number of times per week and would likely create further disruption during day time traffic periods, especially at peak times.

4. Whether the current bus stops either side of FHR outside the Herne Tavern and the medical centre will be closed during the period of these works?

5. What consideration has been given to safety aspects and potential impact on increased traffic congestion given the two local schools very nearby, and childrens nursery in the white house on the corner of FHR and Peckham Rye.

6. What parking suspensions will be put in place around the most proximate roads to these works?

7. Why these works weren't co-ordinated with the very recent works undertaken by UK Power Networks at this junction, which would have been in line with TFL's own guidnace on Streetworks/NRSWA.

The broader point that these works are completely spurios, not required, inconvenient, materially disruptive to the local community, a waste of time and ridiculous use of tax payers money should raise further questions as to whether they would pass any test of a reasonable thinking person. The only reasons I can think of is that the someone at the council is very keen indeed to ensure that their contractors have "plenty of work" to keep them occupied. Oh and that the two nearby cafe's will be doing a roaring trade from the workmen, I expect.

[Burbage]

neilson99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still don't understand how these are classed as

> temporary. They've been installed so long, how

> exactly will new "permanent" lights be any

> diffrent to the ones we have now?

There are three things that are being done.

First, they're going to play with the phasings. Specifically the pedestrian phasings.

Secondly, they're going to move the stop lines nearer the junction, ostensibly to better match pedestrian 'desire lines'.

Thirdly, they'll be installing some expensive 'pedestrian detection' systems to allow those pedestrians that are presumptuous enough to push the button an extensive period of grace in which to contemplate the appalling consequences of their action, repent inwardly and 'move away' before the signals commit themselves to disturbing the flow of traffic.

The reason they're being 'made permanent' is because, during an entirely self-interested period of arrant activism, a number of nearby residents campaigned to have them retained. And because the force of localism is strong in the borough, the council waved it's paws in the air without for a moment considering the impact it will have on the majority of junction users. It's even spending money on improvements to the "public realm" which are presumably being kept secret for a reason.

The truth is that the majority of juction users don't live near the junction, nor would most of them countenance walking across it. Yet most won't have been consulted at all. This whole madcap scheme is entirely down to a tiny minority who just happen to live nearby and entertain some trumped-up delusion that death-free access to schools, shops and parks is some sort of entitlement rather than a self-indulgent luxury.

Sadly, while there's a subversive and antisocial rump with the brass neck to write to councillors, respond to consultations and so forth, this is the the sort of thing we end up with. Before long, and without so much as a referendum, we end up having our own money spent on speed humps and bicycle lanes and other acts of environmentally-questionable lunacy. And it's not as if pedestrians pay road tax.

[dbboy]

Well said neilson99 and Burbage for two great posts, am totally supportive of your views.

[henryb]

> This whole madcap

> scheme is entirely down to a tiny minority who

> just happen to live nearby and entertain some

> trumped-up delusion that death-free access to

> schools, shops and parks is some sort of

> entitlement rather than a self-indulgent luxury.

Arf - yeah christ, how selfish of them?

I have to confess to putting the Zebra option down but I then I think forgot to post it - so it is all my fault. The lights aren't so bad - if they weren't there you would only get stuck for longer at the next set.

[the-e-dealer]

I think verbiage was being Ironic.

[henryb]

Yeah I know quality post.

[neilson99]

If we got some cycle lanes out of this then great. It would make my occassional fair weather commute by bike a little less stressful. What I am wondering is why we are spending our money on the removal of "temporary" iron, steel and glass that have been cast in concrete and tarmac and sat there for a number of years, with what I imagine won't be dissimilar to what we currently have now. Perhaps I just need to open up my dictionary and confirm my understanding of "temporary" - my bad.

Still, at least then I won't have to exercise my free will and decide whether as a grown adult I walk 10 yards further down the M25 like Forest Hill Road and cross at the actual crossing rather than dodge through the traffic. I might not agree with it but what a tremendous contribution this will make to the quality of life of the poor citizens of the area who regularly travel through our very own spaghetti junction. Democracy is great, innit?

[spanglysteve]

I completely agree with neilson99.

Renata, please an you explain how much correspondence you have received about this junction prior to the consultation happening and it's nature.

I can't believe you received many complaints about this temporary setup. I can not believe that there is no way to reprogramme the existing lights without ripping them out and replacing them with something similar.

If you want to understand why we no longer trust our politicians and councillors it's because you sanction spend on such unnessesary works and then dont even try to hide the fact that you are pretty much admit on a public forum that the real driver is a "use it or lose it" situation. News flash, if you don't use all your budget in the course of the year it means you had too much to begin with. You are extremely misguided if you feel this issue is important against all other competing demands for for finite public cash. Thank the heavens I did not vote for your disgraceful administration!

[Penguin68]

I am sure they come from different budget heads, but my preference would be expenditure on correcting the increasing number of potholes on local roads throughout the wards, rather than on tinkering with the traffic flows (although the ED Grove junction with the Rye was literally a killer and did need addressing, indeed rather more quickly than it was addressed. Jury's out on whether the 'fix' actually is one.

[ontheRye]

Travelling home on the 63 yesterday evening,minor miracle, the Peckham rye/east Dulwich rd junction roadworks have been completed and I could see vehicles travelling east filtering right down the rye! Only to find that the same gang have now moved onto the colyton rd/forest hill rd junction with predictable results on traffic, incl the closure of the bus stop opp the co-op on FHR. I agree with all the incredulous comments on these lights being labelled as 'temporary'. They were indeed temporary when initially installed to cope with the lorries carting away spoilage from the Thames Water tunnel, but they have long acquired a permanence and the junction seemed to be working well for both traffic and pedestrians.

You really do have to question the logic and sense of this given the alternatives that this money could have been spent on, the situation at the top of FHR is crying out for something to be done, even filling in potholes would have been better!

And, I suspect like all/most local residents, I am still waiting to be notified by tfl/southwark of these roadworks

[dbboy]

The closure of the bus stop opposite the Co-Op on Forest Hill Road is going to severely inconvienience people who need to attend the surgery and have mobility issues. Another poorly thought out consequence of the road works that have been over looked.

[neilson99]

Indeed dbboy - see my question 4 above, unanswered. And still no notice recieved either from contractor or appropriate sponsoring authority.

[the-e-dealer]

I dont think q4 needs answering now as works have started.

[Renata Hamvas]

I have contacted council officers about this and gone there myself. The disabled parking in front of the Doctor's surgery is unaffected, as is the northbound bus stop. The southbound bus stop is closed. Parking for the post office, Co-Op etc is largely unaffected (a small stretch, less than one car length for a warning sign).

Neilson99 and Ontherye I have no idea why you haven't received notification. Residents living close to the works were notified by letter . Please pm me your details so that I can chase up.

The consultation period was for several weeks and I personally spoke to many residents living close to the lights. I have asked as to why these lights needed to be replaced by other ones and am waiting on a response from council officers. The top of the road is an issue, Southwark officers have had a number of meetings with their counterparts in Lewisham. If you are a Lewisham resident keen to have something done her, please contact Lewisham Council. Also if your child attends Fairlawn (southwark or Lewisham resident) and you have issues with crossing here, please contact Fairlawn School or Lewisham Council.

Renata