Highway Information re Deptford High Street

Dear Mr Stocker

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Reference No: 281788

Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions/exceptions, the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred. If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if appropriate). Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear for us to respond fully.

Kind Regards

Maria Kaminski
Corporate Information Team

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Stocker

Thank you for your recent request for information, made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have contacted the Regeneration team behind the project and have been advised as follows and attached:

When we first embarked on the project, we discussed the issue with the Councils Cycle Officer at the time,' Carol Crankshaw' We all agreed that having a designated cycle route, in any direction simply ticked a box, but did not provide a good cycling provision due to the nature of the street. We agree at that time that we had to allow cyclist in a contra flow direction but agreed that this didn't need to be marked, a similar scenario to what happened in Douglas Way.
Prior to the one way implementation we regularly saw drivers shouting at each other, therefore we wanted to reduce this conflict.

We have addressed you queries point by point:

1) We engaged traffic consultants, Urban Flow to prepare the initial signing principles plan as part of our study, this then developed to become the basis of the contractor set - later joined by the signing schedule - attached.

2) At the time of the street design, the DfT were already in the process of amending the regulations to allow for 960.2 without authorisation.

Ref para 99 & 100 DfT TAL 01/12 (attached):

Contra-flow cycling - diagram 960.2

"A new sign permitting contra flow cycling either with or without an advisory lane marked on the carriageway has been prescribed in amending regulations. This is intended for use at locations where space constraints prevent the physical infrastructure normally used with mandatory contra-flow cycling facilities.

Direction 17 requires this sign to be placed only in conjunction with the cycle road marking to diagram 1057. "

The Cycling Touring Club (CTC) confirm this understanding in the attached document 'Contra-Flow Cycling' - see 4 (extract below).

"Along the contra-flow link, general traffic should be advised of the contra-flow route by means of sign diagram number 960.1 where a mandatory lane is provided. With an advisory lane, or without a cycle lane, 960.2 should be used (N.B. following changes to the regulations5 in 2012, this sign no longer requires authorisation from DfT)."

"Along the contra-flow link, general traffic should be advised of the contra-flow route by means of sign diagram number 960.1 where a mandatory lane is provided. With an advisory lane, or without a cycle lane, 960.2 should be used (N.B. following changes to the regulations5 in 2012, this sign no longer requires authorisation from DfT)."

3) Signage was installed by both the main contractor and by Skanska, the lighting contractor for Lewisham. Skanska are responsible for any signs on lamp columns and for illuminated signage. The main contractor, Maylim Ltd was responsible for all other signage. Therefore in response to your question, signs were introduced over a period of time by both contractors with the street going 'live' for one way in conjunction with the new parking regime on 17 February 2014.

4 and 5) the links below relate to the advertising and making of the Traffic Orders in The London Gazette. Advertised 6/9/13 and made 20/12/13.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60...

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60...

6)The timescale for a Stage 3 RSA, is to ideally carry it out on completion of construction and before the works are open to the public. In the case of many traffic management, small highway and public realm schemes the streets remain, at least partially, open to the public during construction and are fully open at the time of the Stage 3 Audit. It is best to carry out the Stage 3 as soon as possible after completion.
A Safety Audit is not specifically concerned about compliance (or otherwise) with standards, the primary concern is with road user safety.
Your original questions have all been provided to the Stage 3 safety auditor to consider as part of the inspection. This took place on 1 August 2014.

7) No changes have been made to signage since you suggested that the signage was not correct.

I trust that this information is useful.

You have a right of appeal against this response. If you wish to appeal you must do so in writing to the Corporate Information Manager at the following address:

Corporate Information Governance Team
Lewisham Town Hall Chambers
Rushey Green
Catford
London SE6 4RU
or
[email address]

Yours sincerely

James Ringwood
Customer Services Casework Team
LB Lewisham

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Stocker

I no longer work in the team handling Freedom of Information Act requests and so have copied in colleagues who will pick this issue up.

Yours sincerely

James Ringwood
LB Lewisham

show quoted sections

Hi I am not in the office or picking up emails. I will return on Tuesday 28 July at which point I will respond to your email.
Thanks
James

Dear Mr Stocker

Thank you for your email.

I believe a formal response will be sent. Should you need to contact the team, their direct email is [email address]

Yours sincerely

James Ringwood
LB Lewisham

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Stocker

Thank you for your email. I did contact the service on receipt of your last email to ask for an update and have re sent it today. We will contact you as soon as we receive a response.

Regards

Wendy Stevens
Corporate Information Team

show quoted sections