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

[James Barber]

Hi Tessmo,

2 stage right turns - isn't that a chicken and egg situation. You don't support it because no evidence (in the UK) so it shouldnt be tried here. I took a look at lunch time and will contemplate the proposals tonight.

[Tessmo]

Hello, James

I can see what you're saying. But this is a junction that's been changed, at great expense, so many times - and the first proposal the council came up with provoked extraordinarily strong opposition. Maybe it's time to be a little more conservative (with a small 'c' - I know you're a Lib Dem) and go for something that definitely works?

[Charles Notice]

Tessmo Wrote:

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

> Hello, James

>

> I can see what you're saying. But this is a

> junction that's been changed, at great expense, so

> many times - and the first proposal the council

> came up with provoked extraordinarily strong

> opposition. Maybe it's time to be a little more

> conservative (with a small 'c' - I know you're a

> Lib Dem) and go for something that definitely

> works?

I came across this comment and the sentiment expressed would cover this whole mess.

How very true, just use common sense.

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

Posted by spider69 27 November, 2014 09:13

With regard to the proposal for this crossing I would like to put forward a very radical and possible live changing suggestion.

If you are coming down Greendale and want to get to Townley Road and feel nervous just get of your bike and use the crossing facing Alleyns School. Alternatively if you want to cycle towards Herne Hill again get off the bike and use the crossing by the James Alleyn Girls to reach the road. .If you are coming Townley Road and want to go towards East Dulwich and feel nervous use the crossing and then proceed.

No doubt the cycling brethren will insist they should be able to go anywhere willy-nilly without thinking. The same applies to our motorised drivers.

You could even push your bike on the pavement to either school from these points if you are a child.

As I have said it is a very radical suggestion and would need the application of common sense which seems to be lacking in many things these days, it would also save a great deal of money.

I have been using this route since I was able to on a bike for almost 60 years in safety and am what you would call a local who has managed to survive.

I cannot see why people cannot be responsible for their own actions in every day life.

Unfortunately many local decisions are taken by faceless Southwark Officers after a single complaint and committees you never hear of in the local real world

[Penguin68]

I have been a qualified driver for 48 years - one thing my years of driving have taught me is that accidents tend to happen when road users are (a) confused and (b) frustrated. The proposal as recommended seems to me to have a very good chance of (a) confusing and (b) frustrating road users (all, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians) - particularly when very large vehicles (coaches, lorries) have to swing out into roads which have been artificially narrowed. Where traffic is grid-locked (it will be) pedestrians may choose to hasten across the road amongst what they anticipate will be stationary traffic, until a two- wheeled vehicle dodging between vehicles knocks into them. In general I believe simple is always better - this is one of the least 'simple' traffic arrangements I have ever seen in what is or could be a simple, suburban street junction. The only possible upside is that most collisions will necessarily be low speed and thus relatively low impact.

[Bicknell]

There's a Q&A drop-in meeting at St Barnabas Parish Hall on Saturday from 11 to 2. I've got lots of Qs. Does anyone know how these meetings work?

[slarti b]

I have gone through the details published by Southwark supporting their option 8. It is not convincing and seems as though they are bending over backwards to highlight the positive aspects of Option 8 while doing all they can to bad-mouth Option 10

There are also several contradicts and discrepancies.

Most significantly, the analysis and conclusions rely to a large extent on the LinSig modelling carried out by Conway AECOM. However, there is a glaring discrepancy between the AECOM report of Feb 2014 (used to justify Soutwark's Option 7 ) and the AECOM report of Feb 2015 ( Used to justify current option 8). I do not know which is correct but one of those reports is wrong. This undermines the accuracy of the modelling and the credibility and competence of AECOM.

Even Southwark accept that Option 10 provides best junction performance in the busiest period with the highest traffic flows, the AM Peak. However Southwark claim that Option 8 (although worse than Option 10) gives similar performance to the Base scenario. Not true for EDG Westbound where the DoS figures increase by 44% and the Mean Max Queue increases from 14 cars to 45! Not sure what TFL will think of that.

In the less busy PM Peak and Inter Peak the AECOM figures show Option 10 performing over capacity and worse than Option 8. From a common sense point of view this doesn't seem right and, when you look more closely this seems to be because the traffic light timings have not been optimised, leaving Townley Road branch significantly under capacity. I wonder whether Option 10 would again outperform Option 8 if they adjusted the timings for optimum efficiency? Since AECOM haven't provided details of timings used in their modelling we cannot tell.

Much of the justification for the built out pavements is the maximum pedestrian crossing distance of 12m quoted by Southwark . However the diagonal crossing in Option 8 is 13.67m so even their receommended option doesn't meet their own guidelnes!

I wonder whether the diagonal crossing should be removed; not only does it seem to contradict Southwark's guidelines but it leads to longer pedestrian green phase, highlighted by Southwark as affecting junction performance. The rationale came from the desire lines in the JMP report but a big reason for that is the appallingly bad layout of the existing junction with the zig-zag traffic pens. With a revised junction would pedestrians need the diagonal crossing?

I haven't looked too closely at the option a's versus b's. However, the figures quoted by Southwark for vehicles turning right into Greendale (7 cars in 3 hours) are not supported by the formal JMP traffic survey ( 13 vehicles in 1 hours during the AM peak period) And of course, as pointed out elsewhere, we do not know how much extra traffic will be turning right into Greendale when the proposed JAGS car park there is developed.

Given the errors, questionable findings and the biased conclusions I think the modelling should be reviewed by an independent traffic consultancy and an objective report produced before any decision is made.

I have started looking at the "signalised cycle gates" and cycle safety aspects of the 2 schemes and looks like the same story but its is getting a bit late now...

[first mate]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> first mate, you don't seem to have read James B's

> post fully. He outlined there that London cannot

> cope with as much motor traffic as its population

> grows. Etcetera!

>

> So we need to focus on pedestrians, cycling and

> public transport. So the council is being

> realistic - one could argue.

>

> So it isn't a question of CHOICE, first mate.

> Can't you see that?

>

> It will be futile and short sighted to try to

> blame political parties for actually planning for

> the future rather than just carrying on as if we

> can live this way forever. Which is clearly

> unsustainable.

But TG this is not planning, it is pushing through an agenda without fair dialogue with the community it affects. There are major questions about the efficacy of proposed changes to TR junction let alone all the other proposals. The rationale for each is also presented in a very slippery way, for instance changes to unrestricted parking are presented as " creation of free parking, helping local shops" . This is utterly disingenuous.

If the underpinning thinking is that this is all about making us a slimmer,leaner and healthier borough then let it be stated that way and cut out all the other BS.

BTW if the current incumbents of Southwark Council are so very concerned about the burgeoning population then how on earth do you explain the Heygate scandal, where council housing and land has been sold off to developers to fashion property for overseas investment buyers?

Still, I digress. I am not a great car user. I walk and cycle. but I want to be consulted in major changes around me nit simply told. all of these changes are being made with unseemly haste and it does smack of manifesto box ticking for election time. The irony is I think it could backfire, bigtime.

[Tessmo]

Thank you, @Slarti B. AECOM's 'technical note' has just gone up on Southwark's website. Dated 18/2. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4080/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation. If there's any possibility the figures might be wrong, I agree they should be checked by an independent traffic consultancy.

[Jennys]

I have huge concerns about the new proposals. However the thread here is getting much too technical for me. I would love to offer help and support but I don't understand the terminology. Of course I very much appreciate the efforts of those local people who do, and who know all the acronyms.

[Duvaller]

Apart from James Barber who makes regular contributions to the EDF, the absence of contributions from all the other Councillors is very evident.

It's about time the other Councillors who are directly involved, one way or the other, came out of hiding and expressed their views on this issue. Therefore, I send an open inviation to them to contribute by answering this question.......

""Do you think that spending ?220,000 is justified when historic data show that there is not a problem with this junction and that recent modelling commissioned by Southwark shows that there will be increased delays to the traffic?""

Some of you may wish to pose other questions diectly to the Councillors individually, so I give below a list of their e-mail addresses.

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Con)

[email protected]; (Con)

[email protected]; (LibDem)

[email protected];(LibDem)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected], (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected] (Lab)

They are supposed to repesent us, so let's hold them to account!

[Tessmo]

@Jennys I know what you mean. Who would have thought that we'd have to get so expert at traffic planning...

Basically, the re-consultation has come back with one preferred option 8A. This, like all the others, retains the right turn from Townley Road to East Dulwich Grove. But it has a number of other features that cause concern - for example, reducing Townley Road as it feeds into East Dulwich Grove to one lane.

If you ask Southwark why they've chosen 8A over, say, 10B (which is not perfect, but is less likely to cause traffic jams), they point to the technical analysis of traffic flow done by AECOM which, they say, shows that 8A produces the best results. @SlartiB, who has looked at the full AECOM report (which has only just been published on Southwark's website), is questioning this. The figures don't look right. He's suggesting, and I agree, that this report should be checked by an independent traffic analyst.

I hope that helps.

[Tessmo]

@Bicknell Sorry I meant to reply to you, too. Southwark says that the Q&A drop-in session on Saturday is a chance to talk to council officers about why they've chosen this particular scheme. You can call in any time between 11am and 2pm. I have no idea if concerns raised by the public will be taken into account and acted upon (perhaps I'll go to ask just this). Personally, I think a public meeting, where everybody could have heard the questions and answers, with officers staying on afterwards to deal with queries that people didn't want to share openly, would have been a much more efficient use of time. But then I don't work for Southwark...

@duvaller Thank you for the addresses. Talking of councillors, have you had time to study the re-consultation document yet, @James Barber?

@SlartiB Sorry, I'm assuming you're a 'he'. Like I'm assuming @jennys is a 'she'. Apologies if I've got it wrong.

[Jennys]

Thank you for your helpful explanations Tessmo. All the acronyms are especially baffling. I am intending to go to the drop in session on Saturday and hope to turn into a planning expert once I have seen Southwark's display.

[Duvaller]

The BBC London news tonight said that there are more accidents involving cyclists at the Elephant & Castle roundabout than any other location in London. I guess that also means more than any other location in the UK too.

Why then does Southwark propose wasting ?220,000 on the Townley Road junction which doesn't have a safety problem? Meanwhile serious accidents and fatalities happen regularly at the E. & C and Southwark do nothing about it.

Beats me.

[BrandNewGuy]

They pitched for ?200K+ from a pro-cycling scheme and got it. So that's what they're doing. Spending it. It sucks.

[wulfhound]

Why then does Southwark propose wasting ?220,000 on the Townley Road junction which doesn't have a safety problem? Meanwhile serious accidents and fatalities happen regularly at the E. & C and Southwark do nothing about it.

E&C is all Red Route. That means it's TfL controlled, not Southwark. They're planning to spend ?25M of yours and mine fixing it...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/notorious-elephant-and-castle-roundabout-to-be-revamped-in-25m-bid-to-cut-accidents-9684878.html

... quite why anyone cycles around that monstrosity at all, I've no idea - there's a well signposted bypass route to the north and south which avoids it entirely.

[Duvaller]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> They pitched for ?200K+ from a pro-cycling scheme

> and got it. So that's what they're doing. Spending

> it. It sucks.

BNG,

I forget who it was but a Republican in the USA was quoted as saying "There are few pleasures as intense as spending other people's money".. That's why Democrats aspire to political office."

Which resonates with another quote "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The Labour Councillors are certainly giving these quotes some credence as far as this issue is concerned.

[Zebedee Tring]

The problem with Conservatism is that eventually the working poor run out of the money that they should have earned but which their employers have failed to pay them.

Yes, a pretty bigoted statement, but no more bigoted than the same anti-Labour/Socialist statements that have been quoted at least twice on this thread.

I am opposed to the current proposals, but slagging off Labour is only going to encourage Councillors to say "It's those damned Dulwich Tories again. We won't listen to them".

[Duvaller]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

>

> I am opposed to the current proposals, but

> slagging off Labour is only going to encourage

> Councillors to say "It's those damned Dulwich

> Tories again. We won't listen to them".

I'm not a Tory! You may not be aware but here's a new force in politics that will take votes off both Labour and the Tories.

[Zebedee Tring]

I won't ask you which party you will be supporting, Duvalier. To paraphrase the immortal words of the Peter Sellers character in "I'm All Right Jack", your vote is a matter between your conscience and the ballot box.

[fazer71]

Tories?

Where?

Realists..

Vs

Fantasists...

Money savings

Vs

Money wasting

[@Woodwarde]

All parties are in favour of a sustainable environment, more cycling, walking etc as are the general public. Yes Zebedee, agree, this is not a party issue per se.

This is an issue of proper consultation (or lack of it in this case), sensible and realistic goal setting and use of public money in a responsible way. So it is not a 'party issue' but our politicians can steer this on a sensible course. They seem totally incapable of doing so.

It no longer surprises me how public money can be spent and re-spent to get something right. So let's get this junction proposal suitable for use first time; safe for cyclists and pedestrians and not used as some sort of 'trial'. It is a junction that accommodates unusual volumes of young children at peak times that cyclists and traffic (some of that traffic delivering those pupils) need to travel alongside. If we spend some of the ?200k but not all of it - is that a problem for TfL or Southwark? I hope that the answer is no. I am sensing that the answer is yes.

The diagonal crossing seems too much of an ask. Do we really want young children thinking that's a great way to cross? Someone posted above, and I think it's correct, that the barriers (sheep pens) were a major factor that made the diagonal 'desire line' prevalent at the junction. They can be taken away. I checked (following slarti b's post) and it does seem to exceed permit limit for crossing length. As the longest crossing, it also is the main factor in setting the traffic light timing length. I am going to ring the Institiute Of Highway Engineers

and get their view.

Option 10b looks a far better one to me of the options examined.

[Zebedee Tring]

Q. Where is the cycling money coming from? A. Tfl.

Q. Who is responsible for Tfl? A. The Mayor of London.

Q. To which party does the Mayor belong? A. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that it's Labour.

[@Woodwarde]

Q. Who is responsible for making sure this junction operates effectively. A. All Councillors and Southwark Council. Tfl will walk away quite happily.

Q. Who is going to make sure this happens. A. They must or we will

[Zebedee Tring]

I agree fully with what @Woodwarde say. Whoever is responsible for this potential enormous waste of public money at a time of massive cuts, it'll be the locals who will be landed with the resulting problem.