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

[Bicknell]

@Derwent Groover

You know, I think the best option would be for Alleyns and JAGS and their junior schools to categorically say to all their parents that no child should be brought to school by car. (Get them to sign a promise when they accept a place.) I've been told that other London schools do that. I suppose you'd have to have special cases, like if a child had broken a leg or had to bring a double bass. But as a general rule, that would get rid of most of the traffic at peak times. Everybody knows this, because the streets are empty when the independent schools are on holiday. Then maybe the schools could lobby TfL for more local buses. Since most of the Alleyns and JAGS parents seem to come from Wandsworth, why not a new direct bus service from there?

[Derwent Groover]

Hi Bicknell,

I'm afraid that would not work.

Alleyns and JAGS have a very wide catchment area and have their own very well developed dedicated busing operation that they share with Dulwich College. They have about 9 coaches that serve a number of different routes covering a wide area. They do substitute for a large number of private journeys.

DG

[slarti b]

@Bicknell you said: You know, I think the best option would be for Alleyns and JAGS and their junior schools to categorically say to all their parents that no child should be brought to school by car. (Get them to sign a promise when they accept a place.) I've been told that other London schools do that.

In this discussion about local schools and their responsibilities remember the following:

The application for the funding to TFL to "improve" the junction was supported by Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (SRS). SRS is a consortium of local schools including ( from their map) JAGS, JAPS, Alleyns, Dulwich College, Herne Hill School, Dulwich Prep and state schools. JAGS and Alleyns in particular seem to have very close links with SRS.

- In the funding application to TFL, SRS stated they would "ensure full cooperation and well organised support in the implementation of any funding received"

- SRS has stated they have worked with the council for several years on plans for this junction.

- SRS unconditionally supported the discredited, dangerous Option 7, ignoring local resident's concerns about rat running and increased danger on other roads and junctions

- SRS emailed their supporters (whether or not they are local) with misleading, inaccurate statements strongly urging them them to support the dangerous Option 7

- SRS are once again emailing their contacts to unconditionally support the councils current option 8A, with no mention of the the issues raised by the local community

- 34% of JAGS pupils are brought to school by car, despite good public transport links and the school coaches ( btw this is the only school travel plan I have found so far)

SRS wants to reduce traffic at school run time; if they are serious about this why aren't their members, particularly JAGS and Alleyns, doing what Bicknell suggests, rather than promoting and supporting options that will make other roads and junctions dangerous and disrupt the local community?

I used to have a lot of respect for the local independent schools but I am shocked by the way they have behaved over this matter. I will bear this in mind the next time I receive a request for support ( whether for funding or a planning application) from those with whom I have a connection.

[first mate]

Good post slarti b

[legalalien]

The independent school traffic is made worse by the fact that many parents with younger children are dropping one child at DPL or DC and the other at JAGS.

Here's a suggestion: parents of children at all three schools drop their children in the Dulwich Park car park, and the three schools run "walking buses" (or minibuses if they must, although it's more than walkable and something similar works well at DPL at present) to each of the three schools.

[Bicknell]

From the change.org petition website, (on the post about the q&a session on 28 Feb). The people who set up the petition are sending out a summary on March 8th.

"We plan to send in individual responses to Southwark after this event. We will summarise what we think of the proposal in an update by Friday 8 March, which will be emailed to you via the petition website. Please send Southwark your own response using the paper form, or reply directly to Southwark online (http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation) by Friday 13 March. This is very important. Your individual response really matters.

If you have any questions, we?ll do what we can to help. Please email [email protected]. Also, please feel free to copy your feedback to Southwark to this email if you would like to, as your points may be relevant to other people?s queries.

Southwark will report back on the re-consultation at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting, which is on 17 March i.e. three days after the deadline. The timescale is so tight because they want to do work to the junction over the summer holidays."

[Derwent Groover]

The bid for this proposal to Southwark was ?285,000 overall, of which ?65,000 was for someone to teach/promote cycling. Nice one!

I would do it for half that!

[wulfhound]

Here's a suggestion: parents of children at all three schools drop their children in the Dulwich Park car park, and the three schools run "walking buses" (or minibuses if they must, although it's more than walkable and something similar works well at DPL at present) to each of the three schools.

Love it. Walking is great for kids - secondary age kids should be aiming for at least a mile each way every day. Those with illnesses, disabilities or double basses excepted, of course. Wonder what it'd take to get a wide exclusion zone established for parents' cars - don't bring it east of Croxted Road, west of Lordship Lane or north of the South Circular without special dispensation.

The bid for this proposal to Southwark was ?285,000 overall, of which ?65,000 was for someone to teach/promote cycling. Nice one!

I would do it for half that!

Me too - but add on management overheads, public liability, national insurance, paying for them to attend compulsory diversity awareness workshops - at work I use a rule of thumb that employing someone costs double their salary, and we're a small IT shop - probably a whole lot more efficient than the council. So I doubt their cycling teacher is pocketing more than half that, but if I see any cycling instructors riding around on ?10K TdF superbikes I'll let you know ;)

[rch]

After attending the public meeting on Saturday and thinking about this situation in depth, I have also decided to vote against this scheme as I feel that the Townley Road arm redesign greatly compromises pedestrians, which are at the top of Southwark's road user hierarchy.

I am frustrated that the cycling funding of this redesign appears to have had the effect of the tail wagging the dog, as the biggest problems at this dysfunctional junction design go back to the knock-on effect of the staggered enclosed sheep pens obstructing the pedestrian crossings, which in turn affect the traffic light timings.

So I went back and dug through my files and found the draft design from around 2007, that I tried to get public consultation on.

[rch]

As you can see from the jpeg attached above, this option isn't a complete redesign, it's more of an interim tweak to the existing junction layout... simply reconfiguring the traffic islands to allow a more direct pedestrian crossing, which also creates a second car lane on Townley in order to speed up that arm.

Speaking as a vociferous pedestrian, the preferred pedestrian option is always to move the corners of the junctions closer together, so speed up crossings... but this is also the most expensive option as it involves greater roadworks, plus the movement of the TFL traffic lights, which costs a small fortune.

By leaving the junction and traffic lights intact, and simply tweaking the pedestrian islands, this will solve a magnitude of problems for a much reduced cost.

The main problem is that this draft design will almost certainly not comply with current traffic codes, etc, however it can be used as a starting point and tweaked accordingly...

[skylorikeet]

Robin this seems like a commen sense proposal and I agree most of the issues are with pedestrians crossing but will it pass muster here, as the money is coming from a cycling budget. Won't the council be looking for cycling based proposals rather than pedestrian based?

[rch]

We don't have to use cycle funding, here are two other ways this design could be funded...

The usual way that junction schemes get funded is from the TFL devolved LIP (Local Implementation Plan) funding:-

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s48473/Report%20Local%20implementation%20delivery%20plan.pdf

Southwark gets over ?3m per annum from TFL to address junction schemes. Having said that, this junction probably wouldn't meet the criteria to qualify for LIP funding as it hasn't had enough logged accidents.

The other way to do it is through devolved CGS funding... it would probably take up most of both Village ward and East Dulwich ward's devolved funding, but it's something to look at. Getting a draft scheme costed up would be the first step.

There are always other options that can be discussed, but it depends on how strongly people feel and how much effort they want to put into pressuring this council administration.

BTW, I'm guessing that the dysfunctional Dulwich Village junction (which I also tried to get reconfigured as far back as 2008) and the Barry Rd/Lordship Lane redesign will eventually get funded out of LIP funding, it just needs ongoing pressure from residents.

[hopskip]

Robin - sensible words. Good post.

Can TfL and Soutwark be persuaded NOT to spend money recklessly and refocus on making the necessary changes to make this junction safe. I hope so, that's what we need.

I am also going to Object to the latest consultation.

[rch]

In theory, anything is possible if residents unite and stick together... Power to the People!

[wulfhound]

Robin this seems like a commen sense proposal and I agree most of the issues are with pedestrians crossing but will it pass muster here, as the money is coming from a cycling budget. Won't the council be looking for cycling based proposals rather than pedestrian based?

8A seems to be both - pedestrians get direct crossings, diagonal crossings, and a timely end to the staggered crossings and sheep pens. Cyclists get a feeder lane on Calton Ave, protected approach on Green Dale and lots of.. "other stuff".

We don't have to use cycle funding, here are two other ways this design could be funded...

BTW, I'm guessing that the dysfunctional Dulwich Village junction (which I also tried to get reconfigured as far back as 2008) and the Barry Rd/Lordship Lane redesign will eventually get funded out of LIP funding, it just needs ongoing pressure from residents.

Given that a Quietway is supposed to run through both junctions, cycle funding seems like a good place to look - even more so if the same pot can be used to bring considerable benefit to pedestrians as well. The Quietway budget is big - much, much more than the ?200,000 at stake here - though it obviously has to cover more than one junction. Seems to me the sensible thing is to use the ?200k here, and start thinking about what pedestrians need at the Village junction so that when that money is released, it can be put to good use.

I know your 2007-8 design wasn't intended to do anything much for cycling, but if they're really going to build something like your proposal or "Option 10", slap "Quietway" branding on it, and declare the job done, doesn't that render the entire Quietways exercise rather pointless? If the Quietway and/or Southwark Spine programs don't deliver something that families can use to cycle from Dulwich to Burgess Park, say, why bother?

[@Woodwarde]

People are fed up...

attached from Townley junction

[slarti b]

@Wulfhound

pedestrians get direct crossings, diagonal crossings, and a timely end to the staggered crossings and sheep pens. Cyclists get a feeder lane on Calton Ave, protected approach on Green Dale and lots of.. "other stuff".

Option 10A provides virtually all of this, including "other stuff" such as cyclists early start, 2-stage (Copenhagen) right turn, Trixi mirrors etc. Remember the original reason given for discredited RHT ban was protecting south bound Greendale cyclists from right hooks? Option 10A protects these cyclists better than council's recommended 8A because cars will realise they are turning right and the junction will be operating more efficiently, reducing temptation to rush the turn.

Isn't this enough for you?

What Option 10A doesn't have is the untested, over-engineered pens for "less confident" cyclists, which will probably lead many of the confident cyclists who do use the junction to avoid the feeder lane and mix it with the ordinary traffic anyway. Have I missed anything?

[ As an aside I can imagine the conversations 12 years ago - "we need to build cattle\sheep pens (sorry 'protected refuges') for less confident pedestrians, but if it doesn't work out we can easily change it back next year" ]

For local residents, Option 10A will allow the junction to operate more efficiently at the busiest period, reducing congestion (which also affects cyclists ) and lowering the chance of drivers rat-running to avoid an inefficient junction. Common sense also suggests the junction will operate more efficiently at the PM and Inter peak, despite the council's rigged figures.

Concerning the Quietway, Chris Mascord speaking on behalf of Southwark last Saturday, said that the Southwark Spine NOT a Quietway was on this route giving leading to up to 400 cyclists an hour using the junction (several other people at the session have confirmed this). Was he just confused, letting out a council secret or just misleading the local community attending the open event?

I would expect the Option 10A improvements to fully fit the Quietway criteria.

Re funding, the money has been given under TFL's "Cycling to School Partnership". Looking at the info that has been released I struggle to see how this funding can be justified. But that is for another post...

[Duvaller]

Sorry Slarti b, but 10a does not have the two lane approach for EDG west-bound. 10b gives a better layout, IMO.

[Scootingover]

10a or 10b - both giving good junction safety?

[Bicknell]

@wolfhound 8A has one lane on Townley. That's the big issue, isn't it? One lane on Townley = traffic jam. Which isn't good for cyclists either.

[Tessmo]

@Duvaller I agree. I support 10B because it has the two-lane approach for EDG westbound. However much Southwark tries to ignore traffic wanting to turn right into Green Dale, it exists. It's not a good idea to have the 37 bus stuck behind traffic turning right.

@Bicknell Yes, I agree. 8A has only one lane on Townley. This is going to cause huge tailbacks, with traffic turning right stuck behind traffic turning left and vice versa. Surely we have enough traffic backing up on Calton Avenue and down Townley Road already.

@Wulfhound The Quietway budget may be huge. But that doesn't mean we should tap into it to spend money on things that make junctions worse. Make junctions safe for cyclists. Make junctions safe for pedestrians. Encourage people to leave their cars at home. Improve public transport. But don't build in congestion to local junctions, cause traffic jams and increase air pollution. That's irresponsible.

[slarti b]

@Duvaller @Scootingover

I was comparing like for like with 10A vs 8A.

Have concentrated on Townley Road arm and potential for congestion back along Townley and Calton. but agree that 10B would be just as good as 10A in that respect and better for EDG traffic.

@Bicknell Completely agree with you.

[mockingbird]

I am objecting to the latest proposal for the junction. Following the meeting last Saturday, there has been no attempt by Southwark to communicate.

For the record, no addresses were taken nor was there any mechanism for Southwark to get back in touch regarding any queries. It is quite clear that there is no intention to follow up on issues raised. So if you have not had a satisfactory answer then you need to restate your query as part of the comments in response to the Consultation.

And of course ? we have not had any response to the broader issues raised during the first round of consultation. That is being neatly ducked.

I asked specific questions about the modelling for 8a versus 10a and 10b as the results just do not make sense. It seems that the timings have been optimised for 8a and not for the other options. It is obvious that there is scope to balance traffic flows across the arms of the junction better on the other options - they have been made to look worse than they can perform. Unlike the first consultation, we are not being given the detailed LinSig results and they need to be out in the open.

I also received a leaflet through the door today, so I can see that local residents are voicing concerns and their dissatisfaction.

There is concern about Townley and EDG east being reduced to a single lane and causing traffic chaos. This will cause a real problem for the 37 bus and for traffic wanting to turn right into Green Dale.

The design is experimental and Chris Mascord said as much at the meeting. He said that TfL are all over the junction as they want it to be connected to the cycle route which is to run down Calton. If the design causes gridlock, who will pay to put it right? We know Southwark will not.

The pavement build-out on the corner of Townley Road is so sharp it forces coaches to swing out into the path of pedestrians and cyclists.

There are no road markings to show that vehicles turning right from Townley Road are crossing a cycle path

Removing the traffic island from East Dulwich Grove makes the junction less safe for pedestrians.

In summary:

? This latest proposal is being rushed through without proper thought

? The figures in the feasibility study are surprising and should be checked

? Southwark is not listening to the concerns of the local community

And that is why I will OBJECT.

[Villager]

Let me start by saying I am opposed to 8A also.

But to get a better handle on Southwark's thinking, one should read Wiki's page on "Scramble" junctions. V. interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble

Key points are:-

1. They slow down traffic and produce tailbacks.

2. They need wide pavements (to store pedestrians) to work diagonally.

[Bicknell]

Tailbacks mean engines idling = more pollution at a junction used by children.