Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale

[slarti b]

NO NO NO NO NO to any pilot of Option 7 that includes a RHT ban which was not recommended by the safety studies, was thrown in secretly and, even though it has was drawn up by the council over a year ago, has not been properly modelled.

Yes to a pilot of JMP's quick cheap Option 5 or revised and updated full Option 4

Given the Council's appalling behaviour in ignoring professional advice and hiding information I would not rely on anything they said or any traffic surveys they rig. I don't know whether this is the ruling group, officers or both; probably both. They are so incompetent they can't even rig the "Consultation" exercise properly without making stupid errors.

The other organisations involved aren't coming out well either. Safe routes to School is totally discredited and Dulwich Society isn't looking too good either. Claiming to speak for wide community or members respectively but in reality reflecting the views of a small clique. Which is a shame because they may have some good ideas but are acting arrogantly and undemocratically

The best thing about this whole sorry process is I, and a lot of my neighbours, now realise we need to keep an eye on these proposals or self appointed, undemocratic groups will make decisions in our name. So please come along to the DCC meeting on 28 Jan and maker the Councillors listen. Whether this be be enough to overturn the Tooley street apparatchiks I don't know.

A final warning to us all, beware of the Leopard! http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/

[Duvaller]

holymoly Wrote:

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

>

> I think Southwark also need to open the box on the

> 'secret' person at Southwark who made this

> decision (of course it is actually a collective of

> people) and what will be done to ensure this is

> not going to happen all over again. For example

> with the Cycling Strategy....

I lay the blame on Sustrans. Southwark delegated the design strategy to Sustrans who implemented their pro-bike bias. They ccnned Safe Routes to School who expressed their support for the NRT. They are now backtracking.

Also, one must remember that the funding is tied to the Quietways political imperative. Mix that lot together with a hidden agenda by the Labour majority in Tooley Street and you have a steam roller making nonsensical decisions that disregard local residents views. Just remember there is an election coming up in May!

Duvaller

[Townleygreen]

Duvaller, you are hilarious!

Tfl asked Sustrans to design the various Quietways across London.

These are designed to be for cyclists.

Hence the "pro-bike bias" you mention.

Should they have been pro-HGV then?

[@Woodwarde]

Pro bike sounds great.

Pro-bike bias is what we are witnessing; flawed plans and unacceptable lack of transparency as a consequence.

[bawdy-nan]

Wondering what is wrong with a trial of no RHT.

If it is trialed and none of the anticipated outcomes occur and Southwark Council are right about the main impact being on traffic that is already using Calton Avenue as a rat run (their FAQs in which they imply a positive benefit will be to discourage such rat running)then that's ok isn't it?

If the trial shows significant detrimental impact then there will be the evidence that is lacking now.

[Charles Notice]

Neville Chamberlain springs to mind

[Zebedee Tring]

What is wrong is that a trial of no RHT will become a permanent no RHT because those people who want no RHT will make sure that it stays in place.

[fazer71]

If This is to be done properly then.

1 Make EVERY road one way for cars with one LH lane for cars.

2 Make the other lane two way for Bikes etc .

Any other option is a waste of money because we will end up with 1 and 2 going with these piece meal changes will be a waste of millions to eventually arrive at 1 and 2.

One way system a la 1 and 2 above is the only solution .... If that's is what they want ? BEST do IT NOW !!!!!

A little like me editing my post 100 times ....

All this nonsense will drive us mad ...

[Tessmo]

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.

[Green Goose]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Hence the "pro-bike bias" you mention.

>

> Should they have been pro-HGV then?

Townley Green - Looking at your previous posts there are other members of the community apart from you cyclists. The world is not yours alone.

In other words, don't be a complete pratt.

GG

[bawdy-nan]

Tessmo Wrote:

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

> 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.

Well yes, I'm not an advocate of NRHT and am concerned about the knock on impact but I can't be sure I'm not just reckoning that. There isn't any evidence on this one. Southwark asserts the outcomes will be positive, I fear they won't be. At the minimum some modelling should be done but I don't know how accurate that would be in predicting likely outcomes. In their FAQs on the southwark site they make some estimates on the likely impact but I have no idea on what they're based.

GooseGreen, presumably you are a pedestrian and a car driver? Lots of people who use bicycles also use cars and are pedestrians. Encouraging cycling and walking to school can only help the car drivers who can't or don't want to cycle by reducing car journeys which clog up the roads, especially at school drop off and pick up times. As so many people have pointed out its the school run that's causing a good deal of the congestion. But that doesn't mean at all that I think there should be a ban on the right turn at all - on the contrary I do worry that the knock on impact will be to make existing junctions much more dangerous. For example, my son currently walks to one of the village schools on his own. If the NRT was put in place I don't think I'd be happy for him to do that because I would worry about his safety.

[Townleygreen]

Hi GG,

I cycle occasionally, I drive, I taken the bus and train/tube.

Don't make assumptions about me - you know nothing.

[Gabe]

BrandNewGuy -- you don't need victim figures to know this is horrible junction right at the point where there are three schools (soon to be four) and where one of Southwark's major cycle ways crosses (and connects to two more large schools). It is obvious this junction is a problem. Hopefully it will be fixed before a tragic accident.

And, yes, there are many other dangerous junctions and road layouts.

[spider69]

Gabe Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy -- you don't need victim figures to

> know this is horrible junction right at the point

> where there are three schools (soon to be four)

> and where one of Southwark's major cycle ways

> crosses (and connects to two more large schools).

> It is obvious this junction is a problem.

> Hopefully it will be fixed before a tragic

> accident.

>

> And, yes, there are many other dangerous junctions

> and road layouts.

"where one of Southwark's major cycle ways

> crosses"

Are you sure you have the right walkway. I have hardly ever seem cyclists use it. More dog walkers than bikes.

There is so much hyperbole regarding this junction. The statistics indicate it is not a problem except in people minds.

[James Barber]

I'm very pro cycling - I used to chair Sotuhwark Cyclsits and I used to represent Southwark Cyclsits on the Dulwich Safe Routes To School.

So far I've seen no evidence to make me believe snything other than...

I like the propose scheme EXCEPt for the banned RHT. That will push vehicles including cyclists on circuitous routes - which effectively magnifies the impact of those vehicles. Considerate drivers will obey such a restriction but they're rarely the problem. The inconsiderate ones will regularly ignore the RHT making this really dangerous as others wont expect it.

Giving cyclists a head start going southwill really help. Adding a red lgiht camera to traffic coming out of Townley Road would really help. I often see vehicles exiting on a pedestrian green phase.

[BrandNewGuy]

Gabe Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy -- you don't need victim figures to

> know this is horrible junction right at the point

> where there are three schools (soon to be four)

> and where one of Southwark's major cycle ways

> crosses (and connects to two more large schools).

> It is obvious this junction is a problem.

> Hopefully it will be fixed before a tragic

> accident.

Which is why a trial would be wrong. Clear;ly some people don't care for evidence and 'just want something done'. If the evidence says that this junction isn't as dangerous as others, then who are you to contradict it?

> And, yes, there are many other dangerous junctions

> and road layouts.

[Green Goose]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

>

> GooseGreen, presumably you are a pedestrian and a

> car driver? Lots of people who use bicycles also

> use cars and are pedestrians.

Wrong presumption. This Goose uses his most treasured possession (Freedom Pass) most of the time and when the weather is amenable, uses his trusty blue 1970'a Triumph with 3 speed Sturmey Archer. And of course there's a bit of Shank's pony. But driving? - less than 20 miles a month.

GG

[bawdy-nan]

But that's kind of my point -most people aren't just cyclists or car drivers or users of public transport or pedestrians ...they're usually at least 2 or 3. So, I am puzzled by the "you cyclists" comments. I'm interested though by your passionate opposition to "pro-cycling bias"...

I'm very pro cycling and would like to see more of it, and walking, but I can't see the benefits of the NRHT.

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > GooseGreen, presumably you are a pedestrian and

> a

> > car driver? Lots of people who use bicycles

> also

> > use cars and are pedestrians.

>

> Wrong presumption. This Goose uses his most

> treasured possession (Freedom Pass) most of the

> time and when the weather is amenable, uses his

> trusty blue 1970'a Triumph with 3 speed Sturmey

> Archer. And of course there's a bit of Shank's

> pony. But driving? - less than 20 miles a month.

>

> GG

[tomdhu]

I understand that TFL have the right of veto over ANY proposed changes to roads on their routes. The consultations department at TFL can be contacted directly using this e-mail address:=

[email protected]

Those opposed to the NRT may wish to consider sending something like this....

Re Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove Junction Improvement Scheme

The proposed No Right Turn from Townley into EDG will displace traffic that will seriously congest bus routes 37 and P4.

There also will be increased traffic on Lordship Lane affecting services 185, 176, 40 and P13.

As a regular bus user, I wish to express my concern over the affects of the "No Right Turn"

Edited to correct the official name of this scheme

[fazer71]

Yea right let's tell them...

What few people understand is change for the sake of change is about keeping people busy spending our tax money on nonsense which is not required.

It often results in deaths whilst the changes are implemented.

If anyone remembers the tragic death of a young girl at the peckham rye junction a year or so ago which was due to the temporary traffic management system implemented whilst the junction was overhauled and other utility work was carried out.

Let's pray this nonsense doesn't result in a similar incident.

Unfortunately I fear the worst..

If it's not broken why fix it.... Especially as the fixing has the potential to cause loss of life!

[wulfhound]

It appears to me that the NRT arises from two seperate but perhaps overlapping agendas:

1) cyclists who are concerned about the right-hook hazard & hope to see traffic reduction on Calton Ave.

2) LBS traffic management people who think that Option 7 *without* NRT will cause unacceptable backlogs on Townley Road.

Its appearance in the final design has more to do with (2), but SRS and friends are supporting it for (1).

Given that Option 7, **with or without NRT**, is obviously the gold standard design for pedestrians and especially school kids, would it not make more sense to build it & trial its option without NRT, with the option of implementing NRT (either on a blanket basis or at particular times of day) if it proves to be a problem?

And whatever happens, JAGS (not just a private school, but a private *business*) must not be allowed to dump additional traffic on to Greendale - making a profit from endangering the public. About time the schools took some responsibility for the problems their coaches cause too.

[Penguin68]

This area is a problem and a (potential) danger during (mainly) school rush hours - perhaps 10 hours a week for about 39 weeks a year - a time in fact when, because it is a rush hour, traffic is already slow and when there is a strong incentive (becuase of the weight of traffic) to drive, cycle and walk carefully, which is probably why the recorded incidents here are so low, and why so far there have been no serious incidents at all.

A quite draconian measure (which will severely disprupt normal road usage locally for - mainly- local residents) is being 'required' by the traffic mavens to address a 'problem' which has not been the focus of any previoius local disquiet (at least measured by these pages) against many other junctions identified as being genuinely dangerous, and with an actual history of serious incidents as opposed to hand-wringing that there might be one at some time.

Much of the actually (very temporary) traffic problem locally is caused by commercial coaches transporting children to schools where the schools seem to take little or no interest or care about the disruption their business brings to the area. Indeed they are happy to pass on even more disruption to the benefit of their businesses, if they can get the traffic mavens to play (they can!).

Apparatchiks with a focus on London wide political manipulation of traffic flows are happy to use money they can access (and far more money than an apparently effective quick fix would require) to steam-roller through a locally unpopular measure; reassured that their obfuscation and misleading statements will never come home to roost - they know as well as we do that local resistance will never translate (in this case) into sufficient votes to make any political difference - it is very rare that this ever happens, and although a 'no hospital closure' MP can get elected, a 'no right tun into Townley Road' platform is not one which will lead to electoral success.

[wulfhound]

1 Make EVERY road one way for cars with one LH lane for cars.

2 Make the other lane two way for Bikes etc .

The problem with that is you end up with cars going the long way around on *residential* roads, they end up spending more time in total on those roads which are supposed to be quieter ones. The vast majority of people would like to see less traffic on minor residential roads - even if they don't agree about how much inconvenience it's worth to get it.

Are you sure you have the right walkway. I have hardly ever seem cyclists use it. More dog walkers than bikes.

Green Dale? Hundreds a day in the summer. It's the main lower-traffic cycle route between Dulwich / Upper Norwood / Crystal Palace / Sydenham and London Bridge / City / Silicon Roundabout.

There is so much hyperbole regarding this junction. The statistics indicate it is not a problem except in people minds.

Not quite true: I've personally experienced a handful of near-misses there on a bike & know others (all of us with 10+ years experience riding on London roads) who also have. Southwark's ambitions to get more people cycling outside of the usual demographic means there are bound to be increasingly more novices and otherwise vulnerable riders on the road who might well not have anticipated the other side's error.

The other side of the coin is council/police unwillingness or inability to do anything about the very poor standard of a minority of drivers - not one single one of these near-misses would have happened if the drivers involved had used their eyes and followed the law and the Highway Code - but getting that cleaned up seems almost impossible, at least nowhere I've ever been in this country has done it successfully.

[Duvaller]

The NRT issue will effectively be decided upon at the Dulwich Community Council (DCC) on 28th Jan.

Labour Councillors hold 5 of the nine seats. All the other parties oppose the NRT. If DCC approve the NRT then just remember the time will come...

http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/Ballotbox_zpsfca0d9ed.jpg

http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/payback_zpsf3cab50f.jpg

[fazer71]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > 1 Make EVERY road one way for cars with one LH

> lane for cars.

> 2 Make the other lane two way for Bikes etc .

>

>

> The problem with that is you end up with cars

> going the long way around on *residential* roads,

> they end up spending more time in total on those

> roads which are supposed to be quieter ones. The

> vast majority of people would like to see less

> traffic on minor residential roads - even if they

> don't agree about how much inconvenience it's

> worth to get it.

>

It is the future it is 100% what will happen in areas like Dulwich if not the whole of London.

Once Electric vehicles become the norm and cycling "Electric Cycling too" expands there will be no other option.

And once that happens the vast majority of vehicles will run quietly and efficiently so few will care about noise and the extra mileage where safety and speed flow will what is required. But that will be after spending billions on pointless changes like this nonsense ... It's only a matter of time before 1 and 2 one way option happens.

Until then the morons that be will put us and our childrens lives at risk whilst making changes to anything and everything which is not broken !