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

[first mate]

Yes, we have been told elsewhere by a former S'wark employee that it is claimed letters have been sent out when they haven't.

[intexasatthe moment]

I think 113 at the final consultation is quite a lot actually . Wasn't the right hand turn off the table by that stage and many people gave up at that stage having got a significant change to the original plans .

It was quite a complex set of plans /options and did require quite a commitment to wade through .

That nos may not seem much but in terms of responses to applications is quite high .

[richard tudor]

Surely local Cllrs should have pushed the view that most locals had? And not how many people wrote in.

They represent local views or am I wrong?

[Tessmo]

My own personal frustration is that the consultation process was so...not a consultation process. You got to say yes or no, and each and every objection was thrown into the air and shot down. There was no attempt to find out what local people thought, and why, or to find a solution that took into account genuine concerns.

I agree with @intexasatthemoment. The re-consultation plans were complex. First time round, everyone thought, no right turn? What? The second time round you had to commit a lot of time to working out what worked and what didn't.

I have no idea why the DCC voted it all through when 51% of local people objected. Maybe I don't understand how it all works.

I am also bewildered by the reaction from council officers. At the DCC meeting in January, when local people had overwhelmingly objected to the first set of proposals, I heard one of them say, 'I still think the right turn ban was a good idea.' @bawdy-nan That seems the perfect example of someone annoyed at not having got their own way...

[first mate]

Tessmo, precisely.

These consultations are not genuine. The decision has already been made and only an appearance of consultation is made, to meet statutory requirements.

The process is overly complicated and not transparent and this gives councillors plenty of wiggle room. Yes, these people are voted in, partly on manifesto pledges, to represent us. But that does not give them carte blanche, there still has to be meaningful dialogue with voters, especially those who make the effort to be heard. In this sense the relationship has been abused. It is not democratic and trust is lost.

[taper]

This was a consultation, not a plebiscite. And given that the original option of no right turn was dropped, it is clear views had a significant impact and altered the favoured option radically. Councillors in these instances need to balance the interests not just of local residents, but also people who use the road and others such as local schools. On balance I think they've done a decent job, with an option to review if there are significant issues. The status quo is untenable. It's a dreadful junction.

[fazer71]

taper Wrote:

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

> It's a dreadful junction.

Will this junction be wonderful after the money and changes?

Ummmmmmm

Southwark council as ever....

If it's not broken spend lots of other peoples money to fix it be sure not to fix what is broken.

[Tessmo]

@taper Have I missed the 'option to review if there are significant issues'? Could you direct me to where that's stated in the latest proposal?

[taper]

I read paragraph 19, last indent in particular, as implying there is scope for review.

[Tessmo]

@taper paragraph 19 of which document? There are so many...

[Scootingover]

taper Wrote:

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

> I read paragraph 19, last indent in particular, as

> implying there is scope for review.

Presumably the report produced by Matt Hill based on his own note taking and pre official minutes of the March 17th DCC meeting. Although subsequent exchanges to extend beyond clause 19 points (for example to agree that Calton Ave is also impacted although not modelled, have already been acknowledged by Mark Williams in limited circulation emails.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53066/Report.pdf

19. A number of additional comments were made regarding the scheme which are summarised below: ? Members noted concerns raised by a number of respondents to the consultation about the radii of the southwest corner of the junction. In response, officers will review this as part of the detailed design process. However it must be noted that the layout of the junction has been autotracked and the largest coach used by the school can undertake the left turn in accordance with the proposed junction layout without conflict. ? Concerns were raised about the effect of the proposed cycle waiting bay proposed on the Green Dale arm of the junction on the width of the adjacent footway. In response, it is noted that the proposed width of footway adjacent to the cycle waiting bay still allows for 1.2m of unobstructed footway width which is in accordance with the minimum footway width standards prescribed in the council?s Streetscape Design Manual. However, as part of the detailed design process, the layout of the bays will be assessed to ascertain if the proposed 3m width is required to cater for the potential number of cyclists accessing the waiting area per junction cycle. Following the review the eastern footway of Green Dale could either be built out to increase space for pedestrians whilst retaining the cycle bay, or the width of the cycle bay reduced in line with the expected number of cyclists accessing the bay during the red phase. ? Members requested that certain elements of the scheme be trialled through the use of temporary materials (with Paxton Green roundabout mentioned as a previous example). Particular reference was made of the proposed footway extension of the south-western corner of the junction. In response, due to this junction being signalised it would not be possible to trial extensions of footways. The signals have fixed positions and need to be installed with the correct specifications (with concrete footings, draw pits, ducting and tactile layouts). Therefore there would be no advantage of 4 installing temporary materials in the footways, as any change to the kerblines would result in changes to the signal positions and associated infrastructure. It is also noted that the use of temporary materials would not be suitable for the large volume of pedestrian traffic at the junction. ? Members noted that whilst they agreed with the principle of the layout on the Townley Road arm of the junction, they were concerned to ensure no additional delay is caused, as far as practicable In response, as part of the detailed design process, officers will investigate any minor modifications that might be possible to the junction geometry to alleviate any increase in queuing on Townley Road, should modelling indicate this to be a problem ? Members requested that the scheme be monitored post-implementation and that a monitoring report be brought back to the Community Council after 6 months. In response, the scheme will be closely monitored post-implementation by both the council and Transport for London to ensure the junction is operating effectively in traffic capacity terms and to identify any potential issues that may have arisen following implementation. It must be noted that the scheme will also have a Stage 3 road safety audit undertaken. Monitoring will also include usage/mode share statistics and working with the adjacent schools to understand any changes to travel patterns for the journey to school. Officers will prepare a post-implementation monitoring report for Dulwich Community Council within 12-18 months of completion of works (6 months is considered too soon to produce reliable data).

[Tessmo]

Thank you @Scootingover

Yes, I remember reading this. I didn't see it as implying there was scope for review. I read it as saying that concerns raised by councillors had been noted but that it was unlikely any changes would be made. (Look at the language used.)

So (1) the southwest corner probably wouldn't be lessened, (2) the pavement measurement on Green Dale would probably stay the same, (3) a trial period wouldn't happen, (4) officers 'will investigate any minor modifications [to the Townley Road arm] that might be possible...should modelling indicate this to be a problem' = would keep it exactly as the plan, and (5) monitoring results would be given after 12-18 months, not after 6 months as councillors had requested.

These were concerns raised by elected councillors, please note, not just those irritatingly demanding local users of the junction...

[first mate]

Tessmo, well said.

[@Woodwarde]

The comments in para 19 have also been the subject of residents' email exchanges with Mark Williams:

________________

Further to the email posted earlier I can confirm that my additional recommendations on air quality monitoring and seeking further changes through the detailed design to alleviate queuing on Townley Rd, also apply to Calton Avenue.

Best wishes,

Mark

______

Dear Cllr Williams

I have not seen any response to my email below, seeking clarification as to whether your additional recommendations apply only to Townley Road, or to both Townley Road and Calton Avenue. Are you able to provide that clarification please?

Yours sincerely

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

Thank you for your representations on the Townley Rd/East Dulwich Grove junction scheme. In answer to the questions that have been asked about the decision making process, I can confirm that all representations made, either directly to me or to officers, have been seen and considered by me. I understand that some people still have some concerns with the proposals as set out in the report which I considered.

After reviewing the report again, in conjunction with the representations received, I have decided to proceed with the recommendations set out in the report with two further recommendations. The first is that there will be pre and post implementation monitoring of air quality/pollution on Townley Road, this is so that we can assess whether there has been any impact on air quality as a result of the scheme being delivered. If the post implementation monitoring does show an increase in air pollution then we will of course identify funding and take mitigating measures accordingly. Secondly, as the detailed design work is being undertaken I have instructed officers to consider further minor amendments to the scheme to alleviate queuing on Townley Road.

Concerns were also raised about waiting 18 months before a report was brought back to Dulwich Community Council (DCC) with a review of the scheme?s impact. DCC requested this be done after 6 months, after discussing this with officers they confirmed that 12 months of data is required to make an accurate assessment of the impact of the scheme, this will then have to be analysed and reported back to the next scheduled DCC. However, I would like to assure you that the impacts of the scheme will be monitored as soon as it is implemented, and should there be any problems caused by the scheme we will review them before the full 12 months of data has been collected.

With the two additional recommendations set out above, this decision now proceeds to the five day Overview and Scrutiny Committee call-in period. The decision has now been published online, see : http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDecisionDetails.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=1 this includes an appendix that summarises all of the representations received along with a response.

As we discussed at cabinet there will be a Dulwich-wide consultation on the future of transport in the area, with a focus on how we can increase walking and cycling, where these routes can go and how they fit in with existing demands on the road network. There are a number of schemes coming forward, including the Southwark Spine and the Mayor?s Quietway. This wider consultation will allow us to hear the views of residents and businesses and to consider all of the schemes together. Details of this wider engagement will be published alongside the council?s cycling strategy in June. If you have any suggestions for how we can reach as many people as possible please send these on.

If you have any further questions on the Townley Rd decision or process do let me know.

Best wishes,

Mark

[Tessmo]

Thank you, @Woodwarde. You know, I really think there should be definitions of 'consultation' and 'engagement' on the Southwark Council website. Otherwise they can just mean whatever anyone wants them to mean...

[@Woodwarde]

TFL were putting in 'gadgets' to monitor the traffic and queuing in Townley Rd at the junction this morning it seems. Pic attached.

3 traffic lights at the junction have equip and it looks like the pelican beacon just outside the entrance gate to Alleyns also has one (or two in fact!). Nothing on Calton it seems so far.

[Scootingover]

These white boxes don't look like cameras. Does anyone know if they are cameras, or if not, what they are?

[tomdhu]

If my understanding is correct, they are part of the Urban Traffic Control System, a series of sensors which helps it monitor, control and co-ordinate traffic signal junctions and pedestrian crossings. They are usually linked by wireless to other nearby traffic lights so that traffic flow on a route can be co-ordinated. The ones at EDG/Townley Road, I believe are linked to the ones at the EDG/Red Post Hill junction

The ones facing cars, at pedestrian crossings they monitor for gaps in traffic so the lights change to red when oncoming traffic is less busy, avoiding holding up too much traffic. At junctions, they detect a vehicle arriving at a red light and register the need for those lights to change to green.

Where there are ones facing down towards the pavement, these detect if a pedestrian walks away after pressing the button, and cancels the lights changing. The one facing sideways onto the crossing detects a pedestrian's progress across the road, and holds the lights at red (within reason) until they make it to the other side.

[wulfhound]

Seemed to be some (most likely unrelated to the above?) works going on there the last couple of days, digging around the end of the island on the south side of EDG. Small patch of tarmac by the island dug up & a maintenance vehicle sat at the end of Townley. Possibly extra monitoring to make sure those works don't snarl things up.

[BrandNewGuy]

No, that was a water main leak from last weekend. Water gushing down the road. It had clearly been happening for quite a while until I walked past and reported it to Thames Water. I was surprised that no-one else had bothered to report it...

[BrandNewGuy]

Hmmm, call me a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist if you wish, but I've noticed that the morning traffic on EDG has been backing up more than usual this week. I walk along EDG between 7.50 and 8.10 and it's noticeable that the westbound queue from the EDG/Townley Rd lights stretches at least as far as the parade of shops opposite the hospital site, which is not normal.

This is first full working week after the Easter break and after the small white traffic monitors were put up at the lights. Now only a paranoid would suggest that the lights are being tinkered with so that when the big changes come in, the increase in queuing (which the council admits will happen) doesn't look so bad and so the new scheme will pass one of its 'tests'.

Am I just being paranoid?

[davidk]

Yes

[tomdhu]

BNG, you are correct.

I noticed it this morning. It was tailed back to the hospital. I reckon they have been tinkering with the timings.

Tom

[first mate]

Can James Barber ask for a statement as to whether the light phasing has been changed recently and if so why?

[howdood]

Hi - I cycle up from East Dulwich to this junction every morning to go to work, and can confirm that the timings on the lights have been changed: for one thing, the pedestrian crossing part of the cycle now takes place after rather than before traffic is released from East Dulwich Grove; for another, the timings have been shortened by a ridiculous amount (i.e. only 4-5 cars per cycle getting through from EDG on green before the lights change back).

The current timings are really dangerous - the crossing time for pedestrians is too short - and they have led to a permanent queue of traffic almost all the way from Lordship Lane to the junction between 7.55 and 8.15 on weekday mornings (and presumably worse after that), whereas on the old light timings you could guarantee that on clear, dry days there would be next to no queue for the lights on that side of EDG up to about ten past 8. As well as the pollution implications of (deliberately?) engineering a half-mile of stationary traffic every morning on East Dulwich Grove, there's the issue that cyclists coming up from LL either have to squeeze past on the left of the cars (which isn't really possible given the parked cars, lack of cycle lane, and new cyclist-unfriendly street furniture/traffic calming/pavement improvements sticking out into the road at random intervals), or pass the stationary traffic on the right, facing into the oncoming traffic (which is how the London Cycling Campaign advises us to pass queues of traffic, btw). Of course, cyclists could always get off and walk, or ride on the pavement. But failing those, it's only a matter of time before there's a serious collision.

Can anyone shed any light (no pun intended) on who is in charge of the timings of these lights and how to complain to them directly?