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

[Townleygreen]

well said Wulfhound

[BrandNewGuy]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> And you're damn right life's precious. A heck of a

> lot more precious than saving five minutes on the

> odd car journey here or there. Which is why I

> support these changes, and if the right turn has

> to go for it to work as designed, so be it. If it

> causes problems on other streets - as it may well

> do - those streets should be looked at in turn

> with similar measures adopted.

But no-one's comparing a life against saving five minutes in the car. And your 'solution' to 'if it causes problems on other streets' is little more than waffly nimbyism.

[Zebedee Tring]

So, wulfhund, when the ED Mums in their 4x4s can no longer turn right and instead speed through nearby roads trying desperately to get to where they want to be as fast as they used to and endangering and scaring the wits out of pedestrian and cyclists (like you), presumably this won't worry you. Don't rely on the 4x4 mums (and dads) changing their travelling habits.

4x4 drivers can be very self-centred when they put their interests above everyone else's - but so can some cyclists.

[Jennys]

Surely a solution can be worked out by transport experts which, whilst preserving the right turn, protects pedestrians and cyclists. Banning the right turn just transfers the problem onto other local streets endangering pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Yet more public finds will have to be shelled out to solve the new problems.

[hopskip]

Summary of new background documents from Southwark Council

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3639/townley_road (main consultation page).

See the bottom of this link:

"For detailed background information please view our documents on previous junction safety reviews and the preferred design option. "

A. For detailed background information please view our documents on previous junction safety reviews.

There are two main documents - the background to the current consultation and an older report from 2007; the rest of the documents are appendices to the first document, the ED Grove/Townley review.

Indications of numbers of incidents etc are included (2 minor ones over the past 5 years at ED Grove/Townley) and of particular note is that only options 1-6 are proposed. There is a very simple option at ?8k and the rest are ?200k and above. See:

? East Dulwich Grove/ Townley Road Junction Safety Review (4.28 MB PDF)

? Site Safety Report for Traffic Signalled Junction of East Dulwich Grove with Townley Road and Green Dale (309.42 KB PDF)

B. And the preferred design option

This fast forwards to two further options (7 and 7A) where the banned RH turn is introduced. The document states that no impact assessment on traffic transfer has been conducted. There is no explanation as to how these further two proposals were developed nor the assumptions underpinning them.

1 The two reports seem to use different option numbers , which makes it difficult to coordinate them.

2 The ?junction safety report? has 6 options, all seem to allow a Townley Road (TR) right turn. This report includes result of a traffic survey, giving similar numbers to the spot survey conducted by a local Dulwich Civil Engineer, for the traffic coming out of TR.

a. Option 5 ? Quick Win option ? costs @?8k. It encompasses a removal of the guardrails, paint on the road, and Trixi cycle safety mirrors all round. This option is recommended.

b. The other five options (of 1-6) all involve building out of the pavement, and cost more than ?200k.

i. Option 4 - Preferred option ? costs ?212k. It is not very clear just how this is different from the rest of the five. Possibly because it includes ?trixi ? safety cycle mirrors ( convex mirrors on the lights to show lorry drivers etc any bikes waiting inside them), and ?elephant markings? ( special markings of bicycle routes through the junction. ). It is recommended to follow on to Option 5 , to improve ?junction? geometry? and ??pedestrian and cyclist amenities??

ii. Option 6 introduces the diagonal crossing.

There is little in the way of detailed discussion of the pros and cons and the cycling aspects seem very vague ? for example, no numbers quoted,

3 The technical note Revision 2 is stated to be specifically to examine two additional options 7, and 7A.

The above preferred Options 4 and 5 and Option 6 are not mentioned at all. However, the previous option 5 quick win option now appears to be option 1 ? ie no changes to the kerb line. The staggered crossings are converted to straight across crossings ? it is not clear if there are still islands of any sort.

a. Option 7 introduces the idea of no right turn out of TR. ( it is not mentioned for Option 7A or any of the other options) See the following comment from the text which makes significant un-modelled assumptions.

?It is important to mention that Option 7 has been modelled assuming that the existing right turn flow will stay off Townley Road and will find alternative routes (e.g. Lordship Lane) to access East Dulwich Grove. Therefore, the total flow along Townley Road will be significantly lower in Option 7 than other options, including Option 7A. The impact of the diverted traffic in the surrounding network is not examined in the LinSig modelling.?

b. Summary and recommendations These seem mainly to be concerned with the traffic capacity of the junction. The conclusions are not entirely clear but it seems that Option 1 ( ie the ?quick win? option) is the only option that gives operation for the current traffic ( ie including the right turn)?well within capacity?.

Option 7 with the right turn ban also operates well within capacity; but that is explained mainly by the right turn ban, and is therefore misleading. The report states the wider impact has not been - but needs to be ? studied.

c. There is nothing about costs in this report. The cyclists benefits are only vaguely referred to and there is very little about pedestrians.

4 On the basis of these documents the conclusion must be:

- that Southwark has not studied the no-right turn impact at all.

- there is very little in the way of convincing evidence about the (presumably) aimed-for improvements to conditions for cyclists and pedestrians ? seems to be largely taken for granted.

5 These documents do not lay out any clear reason why expensive works should be done here. There is no clear statement of need nor do they offer any clear evaluation of the benefits to all the users of this junction in the preferred solution.

6 There are a lot more questions to be answered. However, the underlying message from these reports appears to be that the less is done at this junction, the better.

[James Barber]

Anyone who uses this junction will know that the sheep pens aren't working with children walking and crossing around them. That others cross diagonally when the green pedestrian phase isn't long enough to do this. That cars turning right out of Townley Road conflict with cyclists going south and often those cars appear to jump the start of their red light phase.

Southwark Council has a safety audit which says the junction isn't safe.

TfL money has provided the money to upgrade this junction.

The main angst is the proposal to ban the right turn. Hopefully everyone has responded to the consultation so their views can be collated.

Please do also put 7-9pm 28 January in your diaries to attend the Dulwich Community Council where this scheme will be debated and questions can be asked.

[Tessmo]

For anyone opposed to these "improvements" but in favour of better safety for pedestrians and cyclists generally, there is an online petition here: https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction.

Please sign and forward the link to other local residents who may be affected.

The consultation period ends on Friday.

[Charles Notice]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Anyone who uses this junction will know that the

> sheep pens aren't working with children walking

> and crossing around them. That others cross

> diagonally when the green pedestrian phase isn't

> long enough to do this. That cars turning right

> out of Townley Road conflict with cyclists going

> south and often those cars appear to jump the

> start of their red light phase.

> Southwark Council has a safety audit which says

> the junction isn't safe.

> TfL money has provided the money to upgrade this

> junction.

>

> The main angst is the proposal to ban the right

> turn. Hopefully everyone has responded to the

> consultation so their views can be collated.

>

> Please do also put 7-9pm 28 January in your

> diaries to attend the Dulwich Community Council

> where this scheme will be debated and questions

> can be asked.

If one takes the time to read the official Southwark report on safety for this junction as mentioned by hopskip you might draw a different conclusion regarding safety. Maps show all

Please read and ask why?

[slarti b]

To?wulfhound

You said "And you're damn right life's precious......Which is why I support these changes, and if the right turn has to go for it to work as designed, so be it. If it causes problems on other streets - as it may well do - those streets should be looked at in turn with similar measures adopted"

I completely support your concern about safety. But the point is that the right turn does NOT have to go to to make this junction safer. 6 or 7 other options have been proposed which do this without the ban.

What measures would you adopt for the streets likely to be affected (Gilkes, Dovercourt, Beauval, Melbourne Grove, Cowell Rd). Most already have traffic calming in place. More bans that move traffic elsewhere? In 5 years time, after massive disruption, increased accidents in affected streets, lots of protests etc we would probably hear the council proposing to re-instate the Right Hand turn (at massive expense) because the measure they put in place in 2015 made the junction safe!

If measures are needed to counter effect of the right turn ban they should be considered now as part of the junction improvement scheme. But presumably that would take time and cost a lot more. So, the irony is that by trying to push through their preferred option without proper evaluation, the council is jeopardising the whole junction improvement and increase in safety!

On a personal note, The main justification for the RH ban is to protect south bound cyclists on Greendale. My guess is that a right turn ban would divert evening\night traffic to do right turns at Dulwich Village crossing of ED Grove which has similar issues for South bound cyclists ( I ride over it virtually every evening\night). So we would end up with increased danger for cyclists at a different junction, but without the protective measure. This just doesn't make sense.

Mikeb

The only reference I can find via Google for "Cyclist waiting bays" is cycling web site saying "what on earth", and lots of disparaging comments! If a cyclist is not confident to be alongside moving traffic then I can't see how they would be cycling on the road at all.

This leads to another question. These bays appeared in the brief, flawed, "technical note" of Feb 14 introducing the councils Option 7 and 7a. Clearly there had been a lot of work and changes since the JMP report of Dec 2012. The council have released no documents covering this period or explaining supporting rationale for their fully worked out Option 7. I have asked for this and received nothing yet.

[Zebedee Tring]

I will repeat two points that I have in essence already made, in the hope that one or both of these points might concentrate the minds of people who are opposed to the no right turn proposal and indeed might change the minds of some people who are currently in favour of the no right turn proposal:

1. The lights at the junction of Townley Rd and EDG should be rephased so that traffic would emerge from Townley into EDG while the traffic coming from Greendale would be held at red; the traffic from Townley would then be held at red while the traffic from Greendale could then emerge into EDG (the green light phase should be shorter because there is normally less traffic coming from Greendale). This would surely overcome the potential problem for cyclists at the junction.

2. If it looks as if the Council in due course will be going ahead and approving the proposal that included the no right turn ban without carrying out further necessary studies on the implications of the ban and without releasing relevant background documents that have been requested, this would potentially constitute maladministration, which could be reported to the Council's Monitoring Officer. This could have the effect of stopping in its tracks the admin process leading to the final approval of the proposals until the procedural irregularities have been overcome.

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber

Leaving asides merits or otherwise of the scheme I would welcome your comments on the following points concerning how the council has handled the process. Sorry to put this on you but I am getting very little response from other official contacts and you seem to be the only councillor actively engaging on this issue.

"Southwark Council has a safety audit which says the junction isn't safe".

In the 9 year period 2004-2006 and 2007-2012 ( 2006-2007 not in reports) there were 5 "minor accidents", none of them involving south bound Greendale cyclists, the ostensible reason for the RHT ban.

The 2007 Mouchel report recommended improving the right turn road markings (including Right Turn arrows), The JMP 2012 report had a low cost (?8k) "quick win" option 5 including proper right turn road markings.

If it is concerned about safety why didn't the the Council implement these?

"TFL money has provided the money to upgrade this junction".

As far as I can see, a TFL application is not mentioned in the web site documents. I have asked for the "Feasibility Study" mentioned in the press release about the TFL money but, so far, the request has been ignored.

There is a big time gap between the JMP report\recommendations in Dec 2012 and the council putting forward their own option 7 in Feb 2014. The council has released nothing to justify or back up their option and the title of the document they have released (technical note rev 2) suggests it is an annex to a bigger document.

What is TfL's role in drawing up and evaluating the scheme and are they aware of the incomplete analysis of the effect of the proposals and concerns expressed by residents?

Bad administration

I am not a legal expert so I do not know what constitutes maladministration. But there are aspects of the process which I think are bad\questionable administration or have potential for conflict of interest eg.

- Selecting the option suggested by the Council based on a technically flawed report by an inexperienced external consultant.

- Ignoring recommendations to examine the effects of the Councils preferred option

- Apparently using an employee of the company recommending the Councils option to act as principal contact point for consultation on that same Option

- Releasing the supporting information about the proposal at a very late stage in the consultation ( last day of official period!)

- Possibly not releasing the full information?

- Representatives from a cycling lobby group attending the Council Planners Christmas party ( Hope you had a good time last night !)

Southwark Cyclists

I also have concerns about the involvement of the self styled " Southwark Cyclists" in this scheme. From their AGM and previous minutes they appear to be as lobby group of 10 people but they are entitled to 4 seats ( ie 40% of their membership!) on the Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group.

Can you tell me their status with the council (apart form going to the planners Christmas party) and what involvement they have had in reviewing or drawing up the councils own Option 7?

[slarti b]

Zebedee

Oddly enough your Option 1 was recommended in the June 2007 Mouchel report commissioned by the council. It shows how much they care about safety that they ignored it...

[nunhead_man]

> As a daily user of the 37 bus this will be

> HORRENDOUS! Also the school buses will be affected

> and kids will be late for school and later getting

> home.

www.onestreet.org/resources-for-increasing-bicycling/115-traffic-evaporation

[James Barber]

Hi slartib,

I should first say I'm an ex chairperson of Southwark Cyclists and still a member via the London Cycling Campaign.

I'm not aware of any Southwark Planners Christmas party and certainly wasn't invited.

Southwark Cyclists apparently now has over a 1,000 members living in Southwark. So it's a lot bigger than 4 people.

I see no harm in sas Cycle Steering group having 4 cyclists as members - I think it's a shame they don't have a CTC member but that's different issue. Indeed it isn't a cross political party cycle steering group.

One of the lessons from being a past Chair of Southwark Cycists is how fashion driven cycle facilities have been. An island is put in one year and several years later removed and then put back in. Wasting money all the time but giving the impression of action and progress. Partly by parties in power only being involved in making such decisions and not ensuring cross party support to ensure consistency over time.

Suggested bad administration. Yes it could all be handled better. But most schemes don't prove contentious but are successful and if they had the level of administration suggested for this scheme they would all cost a lot more and we'd see a burgeoning council bureaucracy.

Hi nunhead_man,

I also doubt the 37 bus will be held up more but for different reasons. If TfL thought that likely they would object and they will have been consulted. When we were trying to get zebra crossings on Lordship Lane TfL insisted they be signal crossings to minimise impact on buses.

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber

First, thanks for responding and engaging with the discussion. Also, I hadn't realised how close your previous connection with Southwark Cyclists It wasn't meant to be a personal attack!

But, I disagree with some of your responses and it is interesting to see the questions you avoid.

1) Southwark Cyclists (SC)- (comments are based on their published minutes http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/about/meetings-minutes/ )

Not sure where the 1,000 members are, maybe they are LCC members living in Southwark or Dunwich Dynamo riders but they are certainly not active participants in SC.

Attendance at Nov 2014 AGM was 9 ( yes NINE) people. Average attendees at monthly meetings over past year is 10.6.

Like you I see no problem with steering group having 4 cyclists as members. I DO have a problem with those 4 seats being allocated to 40% of the current active members of Southwark Cyclists.

I am a local Southwark resident who has cycled to work most days for the last 14 years, how can I get a place on the steering group?

2) Southwark Planners Christmas Party

You didn't know about this? Well you didn't attend the SC AGM on 12 Nov ( not may people did) and presumably you didn't read the minutes. I have.

But please answer the question. Is it right for a "lobbying pressure group like SC" to send attendees\be invited to such an event, particularly since the event may have been publicly funded. Personally I thinks this stinks.

3) Bad Adminstration

I run a small company. If I managed it as the council has managed this project we would be out of business.

Ignoring sensible proposals you have commissioned, imposing your own option justified via a flawed report, ignoring advice and then expecting people not to notice leads to massive increase in cost and disruption.

As I said in another post the irony is that the Council's undemocratic, dogmatic and blinkered approach delays the scheme and jeopardises the safety improvement it claims to be seeking.

4) Unanswered questions

Your response to any of these would be welcomed :-)

- why hasn't council actioned earlier recommendations for safety improvements

- what is role of TFL in drawing up\evaluating the scheme

- has Council released all documents relating to this scheme, particularly the TfL application and the justification\rationale behind Option 7.

- what is status of Southwark Cyclists with council

- what is involvement of Southwark Cyclists in drawing up\ reviewing Option 7.

[Tessmo]

Good morning, EDF. There?s an online petition to Chris Mascord at Southwark Council here https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction.

79 signatures so far.

Please sign up if you feel you can support it, and email the link to neighbours and local businesses.

The deadline for responses is tomorrow, Friday 19 December

[James Barber]

Hi slarti B,

I'm an oppiosition councillor. I disagree with the proposed scheme and think we can collectively do better.

You've asked questions that as an opposition cllr I will end up being political but trying to keep neutral and get you answers:

- why hasn't council actioned earlier recommendations for safety improvements. Two possiblities. Timescaels- getting money from TfL to pay for a scheme OR higher priorities with more risk being dealt with first OR they didn't have labour councillors in Village ward and it's a labour led council.

- what is role of TFL in drawing up\evaluating the scheme - TfL are funding this and the 37 bus runs through this junction. So critical friend with the ultimate sanction.

- has Council released all documents relating to this scheme, particularly the TfL application and the justification\rationale behind Option 7. I don't know.

- what is status of Southwark Cyclists with council - campaigning group that offers ideas and suggestions. You'd be surprised at the howlers that they've helped persuade Southwark Council not to implement. My favourite was when I persuaded them to not install so much guard railing on Camberwell Road that you literally could not walk along it or cross the road for 1/2 mile. That was in 1999.

- what is involvement of Southwark Cyclists in drawing up\ reviewing Option 7. As a councillor I'm no longer an active representative of Southwark Cyclsits. They will have seen the proposed scheme on the drawing board. They may have seen earlier versions. They will have critiqued it. They will have minimised their feedback. Too many asks has seen schemes shelved. The Southwark Cyclists involved are local residents as well.

[wulfhound]

@slarti b

I'm not qualified to design such measures, but yes, I'd be 100% in favour of more bans on the minor roads. I think it's borderline immoral that the council has allowed minor residential roads to become used as traffic systems (a problem that's become far worse since the widespread adoption of sat nav). Gilkes is an easy one maybe - ban the right from DV, OR the right to EDG - whichever is considered less inconvenient to residents (probably the former). Dovercourt, perhaps a diagonal barrier at the junction with Woodwarde preventing rat-runners from getting from the south-west corner of the grid to the north-east.. I'm just throwing ideas out there really, I have neither skills nor data.

You're absolutely right to be concerned about the DV/EDG junction, I use that one now & again and share your concern there. BUT - and this is the clincher for me - DV/EDG are both main roads, that junction is always going to be a keep-your-wits-about-you sort of place & not a preferred route for children to cycle (at least not without a greater degree of intervention than is on the table right now). The situation I think the council should be trying to arrive at is one where minor roads carry so little traffic as to be effectively "access only" - main roads need to be dealt with in a different way. Reducing traffic volume on the likes of DV and EDG to a point where under-11's feel comfortable cycling there routinely is completely unrealistic, other answers will be needed, but on Calton, Gilkes, Dovercourt etc. it can and should be done. In fact I rather think the success of the much vaunted Southwark Spine depends on them doing so - without tackling traffic levels on the minor roads it's a pure PR exercise.

[Tessmo]

Good afternoon, EDF.

WARNING.

There is a rumour that Chris Mascord will only consider responses to the consultation if they are written on the formal consultation questionnaire or via the feedback form https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1166 on the website.

Everything else (letters or emails to Chris Mascord, petitions, online petitions) may not count.

This is a public consultation that just gets better and better...

[Zebedee Tring]

If this is true and Chris Mascord is really taking it upon himself to ignore legitimate responses to the consultation, then it's another ground for potential maladministration.

James, are you aware of this? If so, I'd be grateful if you could do something about it. Thanks.

[Jennys]

Why are Village Ward councillors so silent on the proposals?

[Gabe]

What wulfhound said. More or less.

Zebedee Tring, if you're so concerned, why not just ring the guy and ask him?

What I don't get is why people who live around there would be against having less traffic barrelling down their street.

[slarti b]

Wulfhound

AS a cyclist I like your idea of main roads for heavy traffic and minor roads for access only. But I cant see this happening without a complete re-working of the whole road network which will not happen any time soon (if at all). So I don't think it realistic to say, "lets ban the Right Hand Turn and not worry about displaced traffic rat-running because in an ideal world we would stop them going through the minor roads."

I take your point about "keep your wits.." junctions but I still think that with advanced traffic lights, proper markings and maybe a right turn filter, this junction could be made much safer for Greendale south bound cyclists. Shame the council has not acted on previous recommendations to make it safer.

So, why not make the junction safer for cyclists and pedestrians, reduce the dangers of rat-running cars and get a consensus by adopting one of the many options without a banned RHT? It might not fit your ultimate vision but it would be a big improvement.

[rch]

The supreme irony here is that I tried for three years to get the "quick win" option of removing the railings from the sheep pens agreed. A very helpful pro-active resident even applied for CGS funding to pay for it.

In the end this was refused because a school safety officer consulted the young people using the junction, who said that the railings made them feel safer. On the other hand, problems are caused by the more confident students and adults who walk around the sheep pens to avoid the railings.

As you can see from the reports, there are over 200 students that use each arm of the junction to cross - totalling up to 1000 pedestrians in an hour twice a day. This is what drives the design. In theory, bringing the corners closer together makes the pedestrian crossings quicker, which in turn speeds up the car phases thereby reducing the tailbacks, but we have a very high volume of students using 4-5 Dulwich junctions every day, which is extremely unusual.

Anything designed for the Dulwich area is affected by the fact that there are something like 19 schools within a 1.5 mile radius and the public transportation service is so poor that residents remain dependent on their cars (or ASBO coaches!).

This is why One-Size-Fits-All policies that work in the north of the borough don't always work down here in Dulwich.

Having said that, I have found that there have always been ways to tweak the designs to address all the issues if one persists... but, although Chris Mascord is by far one of the most talented highway engineers we have, he will be obligated to work to the direction of the council administration.

[James Barber]

More information provide at the following URL:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4031/townley_road-_frequently_asked_questions

Chris Mascord has confirmed that he is accepting email responses to the consultatino as long as they are clear they're formally responding to the consultation and state whether they are for or against.

My guess is that without that clarity responses by email couldn't be incldued in the stats he'll be expected to produce for councillors.