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

[Abe_froeman]

The other way of looking at it is that car ownership is low in Southwark and the number of car journeys made even lower, particularly when compared with other modes of transport. So a much better investment of tax payers money might be improving housing conditions for the very poor, improving cleanliness and the environment generally across the borough(healthy rats running around in broad day light can't be an indicator of a safe clean environment?), providing subsidised (sanitised and well maintained) sports facilities accesible to everyone, etc etc.

Or we could spend tens of thousands of pounds every day 'improving' junctions or rat runs for a very small number of people, most of whom are already doing all right thanks.

[Tessmo]

@wulfhound Big changes can happen. But not by imposing solutions on a community without any discussion. I think even Southwark can see that now.

Most people (including me) agree there has to be a reduction in car use. Most people (including me) are in favour of initiatives to encourage cycling and improve cycle routes. Hand in hand with this, TfL should also be improving public transport - especially in this part of London, which has a low rating for public transport provision.

The Dulwich area has a specific problem with children living too far away from some of the schools to walk or cycle, which is why there are such huge peaks of traffic congestion in the morning and evening in term time, and why local streets are almost empty of traffic in the school holidays.

No one knows yet whether the Townley Road junction will get the planned special cycling features, as they're currently being trialled elsewhere in the borough. We understand that was TfL's decision, not Southwark's, and it seems to have been made pretty late in the day. The phasing of the lights is not complete either. So it's hard to know at this stage whether ?250k has been put to good use i.e. whether it will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

But what is fairly obvious is that the unfinished design is definitely not safer for cyclists. With cars stranded in the middle of the junction backing up over pedestrian crossings, it's not safer for pedestrians either. It's hard to see how the massive build-out on the corner of Townley Road and East Dulwich Grove will ever be a good feature, as large vehicles turning left from Townley Road are swinging out into the area where cyclists are waiting on East Dulwich Grove outside JAGS.

You can blame this all on the local community for objecting to Southwark's first design preference if you like. Or you can wonder why a successful outcome for ?250K is quite so hard to achieve.

[first mate]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi ZT,

> You've poo poo'd wulfhound.

> So what do you think the answer it sot rising

> obesity and the associated ill health epidemic,

> global warming and need to reduce CO2 emissions by

> 90%?

>

> Hi first mate,

> We've heard that 43% of residents have access to a

> car. So 57% don't.

James, hard to say what those figures mean. Is this for S'wark or ED alone? What are the demographics for each group and how large was the sample? Those who are fit and healthy may choose not to have access to a car, ED has a lot of young, healthy affluent people. Clearly people can already cycle or they would not do so, despite all the issues. Cycling is not the only way children can get to school- walking works and is a healthy alternative too.

I support improving cycling for those who can but it has to be balanced against the needs of those who cannot or are unable to. The balance should not be sharply tipped one way, which seems to be what is being proposed by some. Slow, careful change is not as sexy or headlining grabbing as radical agendas, but probably more sensible, in the long term.

Re obesity, yes exercise is important, but just as important is diet. Ready meals (even the M&S type) processed foods too high in sugar and salt are at least as much to blame. I just hate when complex issues are made black and white for political gain. Anyhow, walking is great exercise, something humans are designed to do, requiring zero mechanics and probably safer too. Children that walked to school would get great exercise.

[wulfhound]

Nice interactive ward level map here

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/census-map-2-1---car-ownership/index.html

Zoom right in and then choose "click area to update table" & it'll give you the hard numbers from the 2001 & 2011 census.

Totally in favour of kids walking to school wherever possible - as, I think, are most parents. Distance and time put an upper limit on that, though.. not really an option much above a mile for primary, or 2 for secondary. Give them a bike & somewhere to ride it and you've instantly multiplied those numbers by 3.

[rch]

Just wanted to go back and flag the point that James made about the 2007 Safety Audit (which I posted about ages ago at the beginning of this thread).

It did indeed flag up multiple safety issues created by the fact that TfL's contractors didn't follow the agreed layout plans.

The biggest problem was with the pedestrian access, which is very high volume because of the schools. The extra crossing time created by the sheep pens was causing pedestrians to avoid the islands and walk straight out into the road. We tried to have the railings removed, but this was against highway safety advice, so the only choice was to remove the islands and build the corners closer together in order to shorten the pedestrian crossing timings, which would in turn speed up the light phases for cars, thereby reducing the traffic queues.

A simple redesign with funding was scuppered in 2008 by political machinations and it's been difficult to raise the funding ever since.

This situation did indeed have a knock-on effect, which led to the successful Save the Lollipops campaign in order to protect the high volume of students crossing the dysfunctional junction at peak school times.

So, my suspicion is that the next event to look out for will be the council's removal of funding for the crossing guards now that the pedestrian crossing of the junction has been adequately improved.

As a regular pedestrian user of this junction, I've walked back and forth across the new layout repeatedly and it is definitely noticeably better... so far.

[rch]

But, as Tessmo points out, the bottom line in both the Townley Junction and the Melbourne Grove discussions is the poor bus service in the Dulwich area, specifically the east-west service connecting Herne Hill, Dulwich, and East Dulwich.

If we really want to get people out of their cars, we're going to have to drastically improve the public transportation in the Dulwich area.

The geographical distances are much more extensive than in the middle and the north of the borough, along with the existence of up to 20 schools within a one-mile radius.

Furthermore, the Dulwich demographic has a higher number of elderly residents as well as a higher number of families with young children than anywhere else in the borough, for whom cycling is an unviable option.

So, if we genuinely want to address some of the issues that are being raised, we're going to have to look at the bigger picture here in Dulwich and not the one-size-fits-all fob off.

[wulfhound]

Furthermore, the Dulwich demographic has a higher number of elderly residents as well as a higher number of families with young children than anywhere else in the borough, for whom cycling is an unviable option.

Colour me unconvinced. Three little kids here, no car (though we do use the occasional taxi, Zipcar and rental), so I speak from experience. Other than now-and-then having to get off and push on Green Dale when one of us is tired, it's a piece of cake with small ones. South Bank is a fairly easy distance, further than that and we'd tend to ride to a station. Most older people can cycle too, but as with the young, they need benign roads in order to do so.

Take a look at this blog on cycling in the Netherlands - a real eye opener as to what's possible => http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/

It actually gets much more difficult once the kids are too big for a Christiania - they've got the legs and the stamina to go miles and miles, but however hard you try there's a limit to how much road sense you can train in to an eight-year-old. You can teach them to follow the rules, but getting them to reliably maintain concentration or deal with the unexpected (i.e. other road users breaking the rules) is like trying to teach a pig to sing. There's a reason they only teach Bikeability 2 to ages 10-11 and up.

I support improving cycling for those who can but it has to be balanced against the needs of those who cannot or are unable to. The balance should not be sharply tipped one way, which seems to be what is being proposed by some. Slow, careful change is not as sexy or headlining grabbing as radical agendas, but probably more sensible, in the long term.

The problem in this area specifically, but in most of London really between the Inner Ring Road and the Green Belt, is that you cannot further improve things without addressing the school run, and you cannot hope to address the school run without being somewhat radical. That should be the take-away from this debacle, IMHO.. tinkering around the edges means spending ?250k on naff-all - over, and over again. Not to mention the amount of hot air generated in the community, which could have been put to far, far better uses. Maybe it's time I sold one of my bikes & bought some FM Conway shares - the way things are going it'll buy me a Jaguar in five years ;)

And while radical shifts in favour of cycling may make some aspects of life worse for those who cannot (specifically, getting from A to B by car becomes less convenient), it should nevertheless, if done correctly, make other things better: air quality, ambient noise level, mobility on foot or on electric scooters, sociability of the street, quality of streetscape / street greenery, reduction in road danger etc.

[rch]

You can keep denying it, Wulf, but it's this kind of "corporate denial" that is holding back actually solving the problems.

I totally agree that cycling issues should be addressed, but not at the expense of a dynamic solution that serves the whole community. In 2011, 10% of the DCC population of 36,535 was over 65 and 21% were under 15. That's 30% of the local population, to say nothing about the influx of pupils into the local schools from outside the area.

And this isn't the Netherlands, it's London - which is based around a medieval street layout. Or, in Dulwich's case, farm tracks.

I tried for over a year in 2007 with the headmaster of Alleyn's to work out a way of implementing a segregated cycle lane on Calton Ave (with CGS funding) but, because of the trees, it was impossible to do this with obliterating one lane of parking, which proved unviable... so we abandoned the idea in the end.

I also tried to have it made into a planning policy that all new developments is Southwark were required to implement separate cycle lanes in all their road schemes, but this was impossible to implement as well.

You have to look at the bigger picture. Yes, a lot can be done to improve cycling options, but it won't necessarily get the majority of people out of their cars. We need creative layers of alternatives.

[Penguin68]

And this isn't the Netherlands, it's London - which is based around a medieval street layout. Or, in Dulwich's case, farm tracks.

And, somewhat unlike the Netherlands, is really rather hilly - the fact that almost all our local stations (East, West and North Dulwich don't, of course) have 'Hill' in the name is rather a clue here, I feel.

[bawdy-nan]

rch Wrote:

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

In 2011,

> 10% of the DCC population of 36,535 was over 65

> and 21% were under 15.

According to the data car ownership increases up to the age of 60 and then declines so your observation about the age of residents is an argument against the likelihood of their owning cars, in fact..

> And this isn't the Netherlands, it's London -

> which is based around a medieval street layout.

> Or, in Dulwich's case, farm tracks.

Hardly suitable for cars then, eh?

We need creative layers of

> alternatives.

Totally agree with this and also your previous observation about the dearth of useful public transport serving Dulwich which makes shorter journeys for those less sprightly hard to contemplate without a car if they have access to one,

I suppose the point that I've been trying to make is that when car owners are a minority then the emphasis shouldn't automatically be placed on prioritising their convenience in terms of borough wide spend.

[wulfhound]

I totally agree that cycling issues should be addressed, but not at the expense of a dynamic solution that serves the whole community. In 2011, 10% of the DCC population of 36,535 was over 65 and 21% were under 15. That's 30% of the local population, to say nothing about the influx of pupils into the local schools from outside the area.

And as I have tried to explain, youth is absolutely not a barrier - it just means any solution has to be more thorough in recognition of that. Any able-bodied kid too large to be transported by Christiania or child-seat can manage two, three, four miles each way. Old age (or more accurately, less-than-ideal health) is not so easily addressed, that much is true.

And this isn't the Netherlands, it's London - which is based around a medieval street layout. Or, in Dulwich's case, farm tracks.

Which were built to accommodate all those 4x4's so popular during the reign of Mary I..? :)

I tried for over a year in 2007 with the headmaster of Alleyn's to work out a way of implementing a segregated cycle lane on Calton Ave (with CGS funding) but, because of the trees, it was impossible to do this with obliterating one lane of parking, which proved unviable... so we abandoned the idea in the end.

I'm not sure I'd personally want a segregated cycle lane on Calton (more of a bollard-and-barrier fan myself), but if the hierarchy of priorities is as you outlined, it's pretty clear why close to zero actual, on-the-ground progress has been made in the last decade. I'm not saying that chopping down the trees or obliterating the parking would be a good answer - but you can, I hope, see that ruling both out from the beginning is indicative of any real appetite, or lack of, for a solution.

Let me put this a different way.

A council or London Assembly that were serious about Quietways (I'm not altogether convinced we have either) might start from the position that an 8-year-old on a bicycle must be able to get through safely. That being the basic specification for the route.. no different to specifying that a rail line must be usable by trains, or a bus route by buses. From there, you'd have a number of choices - barriers-and-bollards, cycle lane instead of parking, cycle track instead of trees, legalised pavement cycling, 10mph speed limit + 3T weight restrction - but one of which would have to be adopted.

[slarti b]

@wulfhound, re your post yesterday...

"Some of my best friends are cyclists".

Many\Most of my best friends are cyclists. Several of my work colleagues are cyclists (we have an office Brompton!). My family cycle. I am a cyclist (if cycling 40-50 miles a week 4-5 days a week to work for last 15 years qualifies me as one). I am also a regular bus and tube user, a pedestrian, an occasional car driver and sometimes I use mini cabs and taxis.

So yes, like you, I want to improve things for cyclists. But, unlike you, I do not want to do this in a doctrinaire manner at the expense of all other road users and local communities. I don't want my 37 bus delayed by the botched redesign of the EDG\townley junction or my P4 bus by the possible partial closure of Court Lane due to the Quietway. I think a gradual, persuasive, evidence based approach is better than poorly thought, out grandiose schemes that appeal to grandstanding politicians but delay and alienate the majority of road users.

You wrote...

> The money was there, the political will to do something was there, but the Right-To-Turn-Right mob torpedoed any chance of a good outcome. Result? A watered-down scheme that p***ed a small fortune up the wall.

What a misleading statement. If you look at the Mouchel, JMP and AECOM reports there were plenty of other options that would have improved safety for cyclists but were ignored by the council. The "right turn ban" option 7 was a last minute addition at the request of Southwark. I assume this unrealistic option was pushed forward (despite the advice even of the council's tame consultancy) due to the political will you mention.

However, the "political will" was supported, not by any democratic mandate, not by any independent evidence base but by unrepresentative, undemocratic pressure groups such as Southwark Cyclists and the arrogant, naive, misleading, sanctimonious, foolish and hypocritical "Safe Routes to School" group who did not care about the effect of their choice on the local community.

What aspects of the current scheme are you unhappy with?

- The absence of the "Copenhagen" right turns rejected by TFL?

We warned the council that these were untested but were ignored. But they removed the island thus exposing cyclists turning right into Townley anyway

- The "waiting bays for inexperienced cyclists"

Ditto. I recall Chris Mascord, the council\AECOM employee\contractor justifying these very misleadingly at the open meeting Southwark eventually arranged.

- The non-functioning cyclist advanced lights?

To me these are fundamental to protecting south bound Greendale cyclists and Southwark had plenty of time to ensure they could be implemented. Yet again Southwark screwed up but maybe this will change

- The lack of other measures to protect southbound Greendale Cyclists?

eg the elephants feet tracks and other road markings put forward by JMP? These were contempuously dismissed by Matt Hill of Southwark as not complying with current standards and would not be needed because of all the other gold plated, up to the date measures Southwark were going to include (but haven't).

None of these are the fault of your self styled "Right-To-Turn-Right mob" ( actually various democratic groups of hundreds of local residents who know and use the junction).

The people who have "p***ed a small fortune up the wall" are Southwark Council, their officers and contractors, justified by their supporting pressure groups, Safe Routes to School and Southwark Cyclists. The scheme as implemented is currently a dangerous shambles. Southwark have so far ignored all advice and warnings about the dangerous changes they have made. I hope the current layout can be remedied before there is an accident.

[intexasatthe moment]

" might start from the position that an 8-year-old on a bicycle must be able to get through safely. That being the basic specification for the route.. no different to specifying that a rail line must be usable by trains, "

Wulfhund there'a an awful lot of difference between making a route safe for an eight year old ( especially if that's being done in the 21st century ) and specifying that a rail line is useable by trains .

IYHO - humble ? seriously ?

[Penguin68]

that an 8-year-old on a bicycle must be able to get through safely

I'd like to think that your putative 8 year-old would be able to ride his/ her bike one-handed (either hand) so that he/ she could signal turns properly - as I was required to be able to demonstrate by my parents before they allowed me to cycle on public streets (and that was in the 1950s, when streets were much quieter). But since I find hardly any cyclist being prepared (whether able or not) to signal turning intentions I am sure that this wouldn't be an imposition on your 8 year old either. And yes, confusing a novice cyclist with a train does suggest that Mr Logic is taking his holidays.

[wulfhound]

All I'm suggesting is that if a newly designated cycle route is being created, with ?3M of public money, a reasonable spec is that it be usable by anyone on a bicycle who might want to, whether they're 8, or 88. Wouldn't be surprised if equality legislation had something to say on the subject.

I've little need of cycle routes myself: ride anywhere, deal with whatever, perfectly capable of using an A to Z and common sense, or any number of fancy online mapping tools, to work out how to get where I want to go. slarti B, I expect you're the same.

Very strongly in favour of proper training for kids. They pick up one-handed riding and signalling pretty quick, once their basic skills are solid - but teaching them good judgement of the kind that's second nature to veteran road users, that's a far longer process - limited more by intellectual and emotional maturity than ability to learn. That's why we teach kids the Green Cross Code, not the more complex and nuanced interaction that most adult pedestrians use.

[Zebedee Tring]

Spot on, slarti b. You've hit the nail on the head. And since you are an active cyclist, you can't be tarred with the anti-cyclist brush.

When will Southwark and their partners in crime be held accountable?

[Tessmo]

Questions are being asked about who saw the plans for the latest 'interim' junction i.e. the unfinished one in operation now, and whether the detail of it was approved by all the official bodies who look at safety.

[BrandNewGuy]

Traffic tailing back east on EDG past Melbourne Grove at 8.10 this morning. And that's before most of the local school traffic kicks in.

[@Woodwarde]

BNG

Any photos of these with time and date would be helpful as we may need to collate them to explain the problems to Southwark and TfL.

[BrandNewGuy]

Will do - when I'm not crouched under a brolly :-)

[slarti b]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Traffic tailing back east on EDG past Melbourne Grove at 8.10 this morning. And that's before most of the local school traffic kicks in.

I drove through junction this morning (lift to Brixton because of rain!) and it took 10-15 minutes to get along Townley and left into EDG ( 8.15- 8.30?). Some observations:

- the green phase for Townley traffic seems short and few cars can get through. Even fewer when a coach or large vehicle is turning left and has to slow down to take the sharp corner.

- cars are getting stranded on or after the ASL on Townley when the lights change due to the long distance between stop line and actual junction.

- the junction of Calton and Townley is a real problem. If NW bound Townley->EDG traffic leaves the junction clear for traffic turning right from Townley into Calton, they will never be able to get across. As a result the junction gets blocked and there is a lot of traffic trying to force through onto Townley from Calton. Problem is worsened by drivers frustration at the congestion.

- cars (but not large vehicles) are forming 2 clear lanes in the Townley arm and still leaving enough space to keep the (temporary) advisory cycle lane free. This improves the efficiency of the junction and reduces the congestion in Townley and Calton. Interestingly the current configuration is very similar to the Option 10( ? ) which was supported by many local residents but rejected by Southwark Traffic officers based on questionable traffic modelling.

- the right turn filter from EDG into Townley seemed to be fixed. This means cars and coaches are no longer getting stuck in middle of junction when lights change. Would be good to know if anyone has seen different this week.

If Southwark do implement some of the extra features they originally planned (but were not competent enough to get approval) for I am very concerned about the effect.

- The cyclists advanced start at the traffic lights (in itself a good feature) will reduce proportion\amount of time available for cars on both Townley and EDG.

- The introduction of the mandatory cycle lane with a 60 cm separator on Townley will mean cars can no longer form 2 lanes on Townley

These future features will significantly increase congestion on Calton, Townley and EDG and make the Calton\Townley junction even more chaotic and dangerous. Given that this is on the route of the proposed Quietway I believe major changes will be needed to make it safe for "nervous and inexperienced cyclists"

btw I have just seen the safety audit of the final scheme carried out in June this year. It identified several dangerous aspects, most of which had been pointed out by objectors and local residents and ignored by Southwark officers.

The most significant criticism was the danger of coaches turning left from Townley to EDG overrunning the cyclists ASL in EDG. This criticism, like most of the safety points in the audit, was rejected by Chris Mascord who designed the scheme. As anyone who observes the junction will know, the safety audit and previous objectors were completely correct and Chris Mascord was wrong.

I think our local councillors should raise this issue with Southwark traffic officers as a matter of high urgency before there is an accident.

[cookie]

Having used this junction a fair few times over the last few weeks as a cyclist and motorist...

The traffic on Townley Road forming two lanes waiting to turn into East Dulwich Grove is impinging on the cycle lane making it harder to get to the Townley Road ASL. The left turn is horrendous in a car and appalling for coaches, who regularly broach the East Dulwich Grove cycling ASL. God help any cyclist caught on the inside on Townley if they haven't made it to the ASL.

[mikeb]

Also the crossing across Townley Road between the junction with EDG and the junction with Calton is surely unnecessary and restricts the width of the road making it more difficult to get two cars abreast ahead of the junction - and squeezing the cycle lane further.

There is the zebra crossing only 30 yards down the road.

[Tessmo]

Next on the agenda, because of the recent Quietway consultation (improving the cycling route down Calton Avenue and Turney Road), is changing the junction at Court Lane/Dulwich Village.

So far, Tfl has presented four vague designs to the Sustrans workshops, all of which make Calton Avenue busier. (Which is what you want for a Quietway, obviously.)

No attempt has been made to link this junction with Townley Road in terms of capacity or congestion, as if cars arrive out of the air, like flies, rather than trailing through residential streets to get there.

Wouldn't it be lovely if someone bothered to do some joined-up thinking?

[Charles Notice]

When will people realise and accept that what will be will be.

All these consultations are just window dressing.

It has already been decided.

Why use consultants? So Southwark Officers and Cllrs can say not our fault we were only following expert advice and safeguard their jobs. Not a new concept.

Who knows best old established residents not frightened of their own shadows who don't have to follow the current trend

We must conform to the current in vogue trend.

All that will happen is TMO will appear in local paper read by a few and that will be it.

Have fun folks