former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[cornelia]

James,

I live near a fly-tipping hot spot (Holmes Close) and can't remember the last time there wasn't a pile of rubbish there - near the corner with Oakhurst Grove.

Can anything be done about it?

Many thanks!

[James Barber]

Hi Cornelia,

Weirdly this is outside East dulwich ward but if it was inside ED ward I'd...

Try and arrange fencing and gating which can go some way to fixing such problems. It's a funny little corner.

Get the management company to install such gates and fencing would help as would CCTV so the Police can be shown the offenders. It might also be residents of Holmes Close.

Are you a resident of these blocks who can ask from within about this?

[cornelia]

That's helpful James, I will try that - good point about the management committee.

You'd think they would want it sorted out themselves; such an eyesore!

[OliviaDee]

Thank-you James.

Olivia

[fazer71]

Hi James

I?ve noticed that the phasing of traffic lights on Peckham Rye is at times completely wrong this causes unnecessary long tailbacks along east Dulwich road which in turn causes many drivers to get frustrated, road rage is becoming a problem I?ve witnessed several instances.

This appears to have become a problem since the very sad fatal accident and the unnecessarily long road works at that time which also caused much needless frustration and may have been a contributing factor in that accident it?s never been fluid since then.

Is there anything that can be done?

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

This junction is outside East Dulwich ward but I've had a number of ED residents contact me.

The junctions is funded to be revamped this financial year. Due to the Olympics this wont happen until towards the end of the FY as a long queue of such works is developing across London and to enable the Olympic Zil lanes many pelicans etc are being switched of and obviously will need to be switch back on before new projects are started.

The current traffic light timings are resulting in many people jumping red lights. I've asked if some measure to increase adherence to the traffic lights can be implimented until the lights are revamped - no joy so far. It's a cliche but it is a crash waiting to happen - as per past crash data - but Southwark Council have decided to accept this risk. I don't like traffic light cameras but in this instance they would really make this junction safer for all users and be self funding.

[the-e-dealer]

Prozac?

[fazer71]

I think if they could phase the lights to allow more than three cars through at a time that which would not be double the time maybe 1/3 longer to get twice the cars through then the problem would be resolved for ever.

Might this be a case of the phasing being intentionally setup wrong?

It looks as though there is little need to spend tens of thousands on replacing something which just needs setting up correctly?

Contract making a job for them selves?

I can?t believe southwark highways would be in the pocket of the contractor ?that could never happen?? ;-) ..

[the-e-dealer]

Fazer7 If you have any evidence of wrong doing please let the Chief Executive know. By keeping it quiet you are allowing it to continue.

[fazer71]

I don't know anything it's just that...

From memory it was only a couple of year ago that that junction was renewed with drop downs and pedestrian lights etc ? etc 10?s of thousands spent I guess?..

I can?t understand why it would need replacing now?

There was a time when traffic lights had a life span of 25-35 years now it?s only 2-4 years and the crossing is ripped up and the lights are replaced.

If that doesn?t look very dodgy then I don?t know what does?..

I'd say if it makes no sense then something dodgy is probably going on.

The awful thing is that incompetence or dodgy practice may cause another ?bad? accident at that junction, or a case of bad road rage.

When it was a free junction with no left and right turn restrictions there were never any queues it just worked, ever since the "improvements" it's become a slow danger.

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

I know a lot of road works havetaken place there for gas and water pipe renewals and about six to eight years ago the phasing changed with the aim of making it more bus friendly.

Eitherway it's not working now and plans to review it after delayed by all the Olympic changes.

As for the traffic lights contractors. The maintenance service is provide 'free' to Southwark by Transport for London. BUT it means they have huge influence over when changes take place due to their lack of capacity. It also mean TfL have sign-off for schemes.

[fazer71]

Ah that would explain why when a bus gets to the bus stop the lights stay green for much longer allowing the bus through and 6-7 cars, compared to when there?s no bus and only 3 can get through.

So bus with 3 people onboard keeps 20+ cars waiting at the lights... Genius!

So TFL not satisfied with having a bus lane also need to make the lights work in a ridiculous fashion when there are NO busses going through the junction!!!!!!

It is the phasing which needs looking at.

It?s a dangerous frustrating junction which is needlessly restricting the flow of regular traffic at NO benefit to the buses!!!!

Can?t someone at Southwark talk to TFL about this?

Edit to add

Is it really necessary to renew the junction a great expense?

That would be like replacing a car because it needs the carburettor adjusting Insane!!!!

[Mutrik]

I agree with fazer71, the phasing is completely wrong. If it was green for a bit longer it would help enormously.

[the-e-dealer]

Buses carry more than 3 people and at the rush hour are often full Genius!. Most cars 1 person only.

[fredricketts]

Hi James, It's the 2nd accident that I have seen in the

Last three weeks, and numerouse other times over the

Past ten years it won't be long befor there is a fatality

There. And that is at the junction of colewel Road and

Lordship Lane and Pellat Road. Perhaps you could persuade

the council to make Colewel and Pellat road into way ways

from lordship lane.it wil stop all the accidents

On that dangerous bend.

[fazer71]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Buses carry more than 3 people and at the rush

> hour are often full Genius!. Most cars 1 person

> only.

At rush hour that's true with full busses but still depends on the direction and whether it's morning or evening rush hour thing is even when it's not rush hour busses with 3 or 4 passengers cause the lights to slow to a standstill other traffic.

Totally unnecessary to phase the lights at that junction to the advantage of the busses which already have priority on other traffic because of the bus lanes.

Dangerous and frustrating for other traffic.

There have never been tailbacks to goose green and never been problems there in the past!

It's a simple cross road junction.

Maybe it's the ridiculous pointless restrictions on left and right turns for various directions which have caused the problems.

Regardless it doesn?t work unless you drive or are a passenger on a Bus.

If you are on foot or a bike or in another vehicle you are FUCKED!

[James Barber]

Hi Fazer71,

With running a regular bus service from very early to very late people couldn't rely upon it. So yes, at the extreme ends of the service schedule buses often carry very few people but makin gtraffic lights nuanced enough to cope with timje of day would add to the cost of running them and make such buses more expensive to run.

What we really need is a tram service across Southwark which is much more likely to persaude car drivers onto them than buses have ever been found to achieve....

[the-e-dealer]

Car drivers seem pretty daft. OF COURSE BUSES RUN EMPTY WHEN GOING AGAINST THE FLOW. THEY ARE GOING TO THE END OF THE ROUTE TO TURN AROUND AND PICK UP THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE COMMUTING IN OR OUT OF LONDON.

Where as of course cars run both ways with 3 or 4 empty seats.

[fazer71]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> What we really need is a tram service across

> Southwark which is much more likely to persaude

> car drivers onto them than buses have ever been

> found to achieve....

I doubt car drivers will ever be persuaded to swap their cars for trams or buses.

Who in their right mind would swap air-conditioned leather luxury for uncomfortable smelly armpit aggressively driven slow alternative?

But if the money is there are it must be spent then?..

I think a trolleybus system would be the way to go not a tram system.

No Rails so little disruption on the installation, which could all be carried out outside of rush hour to install the overhead cables, no need for years of road works as happened in Croydon and no rails to wear out.

I think there?s system in Switzerland where the trolleybus runs on tyres and they are able to go onto rail sections for part of the route too.

If there was any real willpower to improve public transport there?d be a tube line extension to Peckham rye and beyond.

Regardless of the Bus verses Van and Cars public transport argument?..

Any junction which has lights which are phased to only allow 3 THREE cars though at a time is just plain Wrong.

So the phasing at that Junction is completely wrong.

If you can?t get that through to the people who can fix it please stop replying with it will be part of tens of thousand pound overhaul and car drivers should take the Ffuckingg bus argument.

Because all that needs doing is make the light phasing twice as long as it is and the problem will be fixed for cars and busses??.

No need to get on a bus or spend tens of thousands of TFL / Tax payer money to fix!!!!!!!!!!!!

[the-e-dealer]

The tube extension is called the London overground. Opening soon at peckham rye soon.

[James Barber]

Hi the-e-dealer,

East London Line extension phase 2 going to EPckham Rye, Denmark Hill isn't a tube extension. It's a regular local train service planned for every 15mins but as part of its implimentation the South london Line is being removed which ran twice hourly. So ELL2 will add two trains an hour - hardly the frequency you'd associate with a tube line of every 4-5 minutes.

Hi Fazer71,

25% of Mahcnester tram users used to travel by car and Sheffield 20%. Plenty of buses were in place before the trams were reintroduced into those cities but those passengers preferred private cars. So yes trams, trains and tubes do attract people away from cars when new routes are opened. Trolleybuses are buses powered by electricity. They have the cost structure of buses & trams but without the mechanical efficiency of riding along tracks.

[James Barber]

This financial year central council budgets have just been decided to pay for the following East Dulwich streets to be resurfaced ? Landcroft Road (?52,617) & Underhill Road (?53,591) being resurfaced; Chesterfield Grove (?206,569) & Colwell Road (?134,464) these roads will be rebuilt. I've asked for more details about the degree of works and when they'll be undertaken. As soon as I know I'll post it here.

This is on top of the ?39,979 East Dulwich councillors allocated for North Cross Road to be resurfaced during financial year 11/12 which only actually happened recently. This leaves us with ?26,021 to spend this financial year 12/13.

Overall of Southwark Councils 323km of local roads 11% of roads and 19% of pavements need rebuilding.

Also some 19 ?amber? lamp posts on Barry Road will be replaced at a cost of ?38,000 ? ?amber? means lamp posts about 2-3 years away from failing.

But we do have a Dulwich problem with Southwark Council chopping down 70 more trees on our streets than were planted. And this is despite local councillors allocating extra Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding towards planting such street trees.

[AlexC]

Thanks James. Good news on the Landcroft Road re-surfacing. It's a bit ropey these days. There were notices up last year saying it was going to be re-surfaced but the workman only did about 10 metres of the road before disappearing!

[James Barber]

Hi AlexC,

Yes I agree, long overdue. ?52,617 should mean the rest of Landcroft Road, but not the pavement, is resurfaced.

[fazer71]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Fazer71,

> Trolleybuses are buses powered by electricity.

> They have the cost structure of buses & trams but

> without the mechanical efficiency of riding along

> tracks.

Wouldn?t the cost saving of not having to lay miles of track make trolley buses much much cheaper? No diesel makes them just as healthy as trams?

I can?t see why they wouldn?t be the ideal cost efficient solution especially if they had onboard generators for parking so would not require a terminal yet another cost saving.

Or is there something I?m missing here?

Is it better to lay high maintenance high cost track and build a terminals etc etc is that what gets the money because there?s a higher profit margin for the contractors and it looks like a bigger high profile project.

Or is there a visual problem with power lines running along streets?

I can?t see any downside to trolleybuses in London.

May European cities have them.