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

[BrandNewGuy]

Just received notification from the Council of proposed changes to the junction of ED Grove and Townley Road. This is a junction that was completely redesigned only a few years ago and then resurfaced and re-marked last year.

I haven?t got time right now to go into detail, but the main gist seems to be to remove the staggered crossings, to add ?waiting bays? for nervous cyclists and to ban the right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove (because of the space taken up by said waiting bay).

My initial reaction is distinctly negative. The right turn into ED Grove is well-used because alternatives involve quite a detour. And I?m not convinced about the meticulous consideration for nervous cyclists. The dilemma here is that for the remainder of their journeys, these cyclists will be expected to merge with the traffic along with everyone else. Unless you make the whole of the road network as ?cycle friendly? as this, it?s quite likely to be counterproductive.

More when I have the time.

Here?s the online consultation. Replies needed by December 12th.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road

[Zebedee Tring]

I am particularly concerned about the banning of the right turn from Townley Road into ED Grove. Surely this would have the effect of diverting yet more traffic from Townley Road into LL and make the junction of these two roads even more dangerous than it is already, what with cars speeding down LL from The Plough.

[kford]

This junction doesn't even need traffic lights

[Zebedee Tring]

kford, are you referring to the LL/Townley Road junction? On the contrary, this junction does need lights, which indeed is something that we were going to suggest to Southwark. If you're referring to the Townley/ED Grove junction, you clearly have forgotten (or don't remember) the chaotic situation at that junction before lights were installed.

[Jennys]

I also received this consultation document this morning. I too am concerned that banning a right turn from Townley road into east dulwich grove will cause increased chaos at the junction with townley road and lordship lane. This junction is already a bottleneck at the beginning and end of the school day with many large coaches attempting to turn there, and is also jammed up during the rush hour. Moreover crossing Lordship lane at the pedestrian crossing near Townley road/Heber road is already quite dangerous with cars speeding down the hill from the Forest Hill direction and buses at the bus stop blocking the sight lines. Children from several local schools cross the road at this point. The construction of new housing on both sides of lordship lane near this junction can only add to the traffic problems here.

I obviously support improved safety for cyclists but would suggest a dedicated cycle path, separate from the road, could be considered. If there is room for tree planting there should be room for a cycle path. The East Dulwich Grove/Townley road junction was indeed replanned fairly recently and I am surprised it needs a rethink now. Perhaps Southwark should address the problem of coaches and cars bringing pupils to Jags and Alleyns

[Robert Poste's Child]

I got the information in the post this morning and on the whole I'm in favour. As someone who regularly cycles and walks through this junction I think it will hugely improve road safety for more vulnerable road users. I have been forced off the road by drivers at this junction, especially those on the Townley Road side waiting to turn right who ignore the fact that, when lights are green, oncoming cyclists from Greendale have right of way (just like a car, folks).

However, I agree that removing the right turn from Townley Road is impractical, and I think it's likely to lead to illegal turns or people using the top of Greendale, outside the school, for U-turns, which obviously would add to the danger.

Also not sure about building out the pavement on the end of the Townley Road part of the junction as I think that will tend to increase the bottleneck at busy times, and adding trees at a point where schoolchildren are crossing could decrease visibility.

One area it doesn't address in my view is parents collecting children from JAGS by car. They frequently cause obstructions, do illegal turns and pull out in front of cyclists without checking (again, just speaking from my own experience). I would make parking at the top of Greendale permit-holders only.

[bonaome]

According to crash map there's been 3 incidents at that junction, all severity='slight' since 2005. I'd personally much rather they spent them money employing street cleaners.

[Robert Poste's Child]

That'll be reported incidents, though. I cycle through the junction frequently and have had lots of near misses, as well as being intimidated into getting off the road by drivers turning right out of Townley Rd who act like they have right of way over traffic going straight on from Greendale, and also parents outside JAGS who show a total lack of concern for anyone but themselves and girls in a JAGS uniform. Perhaps the nasty incident with the bus recently has been a trigger for the consultation.

[tomdhu]

1. My main objection to this is that (along with all previous such proposals), we, the rates/tax payers are not being advised of the costs - either of the costs involved in the study so far or of the overall project cost, if implemented.

2. No mention has been made of the project timescale and the hence duration of disruption to traffic.

3. It states that the proposal has evolved as a result of concerns raised by local stakeholders. How many people have raised concerns and over what timescale? Where's the evidence?

4. It states that there will be a ?banned right turn? out of Townley. This will inevitably result in traffic from Townley crossing over into Greendale to do a?U? there so that they can then turn left into East Dulwich Grove! These ?U? turns will be close to the side entrance to JAGS! This area is already massively congested with drop offs and collections twice a day!

5. It states that ?the existing shared use/pedestrian footway from Carlton Avenue into Townley Road will be removed?. Good grief, Conways only finished creating that 24 months ago at great expense!

I cross this junction every day and have reached the conclusion that 99% of the improvement being proposed could be achieve by achieved by simply reworking/retiming the traffic lights to allow all the pedestrian facilities to operate at the same time ? including allowing diagonal crossing. There is no need or justification for new build?outs. Also, banning right turns into EDG will have serious unintended consequences.

I sometimes wonder who comes up with these ideas at Southwark. Could it be the Conway?s representative who is embedded at the Council offices?

Tom

[kford]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> kford, are you referring to the LL/Townley Road

> junction? On the contrary, this junction does need

> lights, which indeed is something that we were

> going to suggest to Southwark. If you're referring

> to the Townley/ED Grove junction, you clearly have

> forgotten (or don't remember) the chaotic

> situation at that junction before lights were

> installed.

No, the junction which is the subject of this thread - East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale.

The other end is fine as it is, with the crossing and central refuge. Lights just make drivers speed up, especially when they turn to amber. Watch how courteous and calm drivers are when traffic lights are out of action and they have to go back to old-fashioned eye contact.

[tomdhu]

A couple of posts by cyclists from Green Dale mention incidents with drivers turning right from Townley into EDG.

Surely, if the pedestrian facilities are timed to all work at the same time then the safest way is for the cyclists from Greendale to dismount and cross the juction as a pedestrian (pushing the bike) with all the other pedestrians. It might even be just as quick and certainly safer. But more than anything it would avoid the massive negative effects of banning traffic from turning right.

Tom

[apbremer]

No greater fun in all the world than wasting other peoples' money. just recall the junction of Burbage and Gallery Roads~ sensible islands removed several years ago to produce a hideously dangerous crossing. Virtually identical islands just reinstated again after lengthy outcry. Total costs must have been monstrous. Nobody sacked as they should have been. The whole road "improvements" programme is absurd as it appears that annual"budgets" are set (by whom??) and then have to be spent come what may on whatever daft scheme some jobsworth dreams up.

[macutd]

I totally agree that it doesn't need lights at all. Just some kind of help for pedestrians crossing and that doesn't have to be at the crossing!

How did we cope before the lights were recently put in?!!

[edhistory]

tomdhu Wrote:

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

>

> I sometimes wonder who comes up with these ideas

> at Southwark. Could it be the Conway?s

> representative who is embedded at the Council

> offices?

>

Is this true?

Conway are great people who do great work.

It says so on their vehicles.

[tomdhu]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> tomdhu Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > I sometimes wonder who comes up with these

> ideas

> > at Southwark. Could it be the Conway?s

> > representative who is embedded at the Council

> > offices?

> >

>

> Is this true?

Yes, there is a Conway representative with a permanent office provided by the Council within the Council building - supposedly for "liason" purposes.

And some of us have always wondered why Conway get virtually all the Council work. Go figure!

[Villager]

Why is it that this type of work always goes to Conway and why does it never appear to go out to open tender???????????

[Countrlass22]

because conway won bid to do contract for southwark and have won it many years in a row in fact way back to 2002. having lived southwark borough many years seems be there only contractor for these kind of works.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Villager Wrote:

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

> Why is it that this type of work always goes to

> Conway and why does it never appear to go out to

> open tender???????????

The latter would lead in turn, presumably, to people criticising the Council for wasting time and resources putting every job out for tender in a separate process instead of once, allowing economies of scale etc. Sometimes they just can't win, can they.

[tomdhu]

The "No right turn" will impact massively on the following three junctions - which are already congested much of the day:-

1. EDG/Red Post Hill/Dulwich Village/Village Way junction.

2. Dulwich Village/Calton Av/Turney Rd.

3. Gilkes Crescent/Dulwich Village.

Whoever drafted this proposal obviously us not familiar with the local traffic patterns.

[BrandNewGuy]

And it will add to the Melbourne Grive rat run from LL to EDG.

[dulwichquine]

While some of the measure appear sensible, we are totally against a no right turn. Where's the analysis to prove that a) it is necessary b) where all the traffic is going to go? Would be interesting to know what our local councillors stand is on this.

[tiddles]

that is exactly what I thought dulwichquine - I think the no right turn could actually become dangerous as people race around finding alternatives (one of which is bound to be 3 point turns in daft places actually making it more dangerous for the many children at several different schools)

I pity Gilkes crescent

[James Barber]

I think overall the scheme would be good, IF the proposed banned right turn from Townley Road were dropped. It is cited as being required to avoid conflicts with cyclists but the opposite direction stated cyclists would have a head start avoiding such cited conflicts. I can;t see that both measures are required.

My hunch the banned right turn isn't about what's been stated but to make a single lane work from a capacity of vehicles perspective. So a more honest consultation would be welcome.

A diagonal crossing is something we've long asked for - currently this is how the crossing is used but designing this into the crossing should make it safer.

So please everyone response to the scheme. I've stated I oppose it because of the banned Townley Road banned right turn but overall would like to support it. Hope that makes sense.

Adding a post hear WILL NOT AFFECT THE CONSULTATION OUTCOME so please complete the public consultation ASAP.

It also isn't clear if the Dulwich Community Council will be invited to formally comment. I'll ask that it is which means a public meeting will take place to discuss the proposed changes.

[tomdhu]

Crikes! This will affect the 37 bus route severely.

This proposal is a complete dog's dinner.

Tom

[ed_pete]

I'm another that's definitely not in favour of the no right turn from Townley. Can I also suggest that as this junction falls in Village Ward that you email your opposition to the ward councillors as well as completing the feedback form.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]