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

[fazer71]

I remember when there were two lanes exiting Townley Rd.

It all started going wrong when the exit was reduced to one lane...

Rocket science required here me thinks ???????

The pathetic reality of this is there are people who depend on making a living and justifying their jobs within Southwark council on the back of constant messing with the junctions, micromanaging every millimetre of every road in Southwark. ? often incompetently? speed humps, yellow lines, bell bollards, junctions the list of BS products which add nothing is endless.. whilst we suffer potholes, puddles and broken pavements all over.

Remember if they don't spend the budget they get less next year and the manager of the wonky roads department may end up with fewer staff and so less responsibility and potentially lower wages. !

So bs design after bs design year after year to justify their jobs. :(

But the true true sadness is that their messing and constant change is as likely to cause deaths as it is to prevent them!

[BrandNewGuy]

It was reduced to one lane to allow for that weird 'bay' for nervous cyclists. Not the cyclists' area directly in front of motor vehicles, which makes sense, but some sort of "beginners' pool" sitting next to the rest of the traffic. Get rid of that and the problem's solved.

[slarti b]

to BrandNewGuy

"It was reduced to one lane to allow for that weird 'bay' for nervous cyclists."

Agreed. But this was the Council's option 7 which was designed around a RHT ban. Their option 7a, with no RHT ban was essentially a fudged Option 7 and it was misleading and wrong for Matt Hill to quote 7a as the only (and inefficient) alternative at the DCC meeting.

Remember that JMP's option 4, recommended in Southwark's junction safety review of Dec 2012, included most of the safety measures for cyclists and pedestrians. It also had a separate turn lane and good markings for traffic turning right and worked efficiently. This option was fully modelled by independent consultants and was used in the funding bid for TFL so presumably was acceptable to them.

Option 4 did not have the "weird bays" which have no justification at all and will not be missed. It had smaller build outs, which I think will be better for coaches.

Option 4 did not have early release for Greendale cyclists (not sure if they were legal at the time). These could be added and I think any effect on queues would be mitigated by the 2 lanes exiting Townley working more efficiently.

Southwark traffic officers don't seem willing to listen to local residents and, if they dont, I am afraid we will end up with another bad scheme that will be rejected by teh local community. I hope I am proved wrong.

[hopskip]

The 28th Jan DCC Meeting provided some detail for a revised consultation and Councillors and the Southwark planner agreed to ensure transparency and full engagement with the community. No specific method for engagement was provided on the night. The results would be brought back to the 17th March DCC meeting and timing was said to be extremely tight to enable work to take place over the summer.

The message below was sent out the next day (its original circulation list is unclear) and is now being circulated more widely, so posted here for general information. The details of a new Option 8 (which was already devised by Southwark according to the timeframe quoted below) was not provided on the night of the DCC meeting. This was a prime opportunity missed or avoided.

_____________________________________-

Please find below the timetable officers have agreed with the cabinet member for a revised Townley Road option. Please feel free to share this with the SRTS group and indeed other contacts as you see fit.

Our proposed timescale is as follows:

Draw up and model new option 8 ? complete by 30 January (2.5 weeks)

Assuming it works -

Draw up new public consultation material ? 13 Feb (2 weeks)

Consult ? 16 Feb to 6 March (3 weeks)

Report to DCC ? 17 March - only 7 working days from close of consultation so we would need to bring a verbal update to the meeting given the lead in times for report preparation. This would be permissible as this is a consultative report rather than a decision making one.

Formal ?IDM? decision by Cabinet Member ? mid-late April

Advertise statutory orders ? April

Consider any objections (if received) ? May (further report to Cabinet member required)

Implement ? late July/August (school summer holidays)

As you can see, the timetable is extremely challenging but just about achievable ? bearing in mind the lead-in times or statutory requirements for some of these stages ? although clearly consultation will need to be a short, focussed period seeking feedback on one option rather than a lengthier engagement exercise. Although I accept that risks remain about this kind of approach, I think they are much reduced - since the consensus I am hearing from both the meeting on Weds and from ward Councillors is that as long as the option ?works?, and delivers the bulk of the cycle benefits, yet retains the right turn, that this is likely to find general support in the community ? since it is clear from our consultation that the vast majority of those opposed are focussed only on the right turn ban. If we did not meet this timetable then I do not think implementation this summer is possible, and on that basis the funding is likely to be withdrawn. This is not to say that further funding couldn?t be found in the future, of course, but this particular funding stream is very unlikely to be extended further past April 2016.

I trust this is helpful.

Kind regards

Matt.

Matthew Hill

Public Realm Programme Manager

Environment and Leisure

Southwark Council

[Tessmo]

According to the timetable you posted @hopskip, consultation on the new option starts this Monday 16 February. Any idea what's going to happen and how it will be done?

[hopskip]

Tessmo

the only info that I have is from the Southwark email:

Draw up new public consultation material ? 13 Feb (2 weeks)

Consult ? 16 Feb to 6 March (3 weeks)

I will look out for it on the Southwark website on the 16th Feb - but perhaps it will also be mailed to some local streets. The methods for consultation do not seem to have been disclosed.

I have just looked again at the Dulwich Community Council minutes of 28th Jan and can't see a summary of the range of issues raised in response to the consultation. Just a brief mention concentrating on the no RHT ban (points 8, 9 and 10 ) to be found in:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s51361/Townley%20Road%20East%20Dulwich%20Grove%20Green%20Dale%20junction%20improvements.pdf

I submitted feedback that relates to aspects of the design beyond the RHT ban. It is not clear if Southwark are going to persist with these in their new proposal and if so, on what basis. I had assumed that a consultation report would have to be issued first so that it could respond to all the points raised in the first consultation. I hope that I am not going to have to repeat comments. If I have to do that, it will be frustrating to say the least.

[Tessmo]

I guess we'll hear on Monday what the brand-new scheme for this junction is. Or maybe we won't. I'll drag a chair into my hallway so that I can closely monitor my letterbox at all times...

[mockingbird]

Remember you are in the Southwark game of Consultation Cluedo, Tessmo.

Will it be Cllr Barber, with the yellow box of promises, in the Forum

or will it be East Dulwich Postman, with blood pressure raising Southwark leaflet, down Townley Road

or maybe aspiring Labour Parliamentary Candidate and Agent, in red flush of embarrassment, in the Cabinet Member's ear.

Who knows? Roll on Monday.....

[fazer71]

The only thing we can be 100% certain of is we'll be shelling out to fix it again in a few years!

Southwark staff and their brown paper envelope contractors what a bunch of skilled freeloaders!

[BrandNewGuy]

The new consultation for the revised plan is due to start today. Nothing on Southwark's website yet, though at least they've removed the old consultation from 'current' consultations. Holding my breath here...

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, that's one day of the three-week consultation gone without a whisper from the Council.

[@Woodwarde]

One of our ward councillors commented on email

In response to the views of residents I have pressed for a Saturday session and it looks likely that this will now be held on Saturday 28th February, 11-2, venue to be confirmed.

[Tessmo]

I wonder what a Saturday session is? Holding my breath...

[BrandNewGuy]

Day two of the revised consultation period and still nothing on the Council website. Why am I not surprised?

[slarti b]

2 possibilities?

1) The council are working hard to revise the scheme so they get an efficient junction which improves safety without a major impact on traffic and this is taking longer than expected

or

2) The traffic planners are just tinkering with their botched scheme 7a (with the massive build outs and useless cycle bays which will obstruct the junction) and want to leave as long as possible before they let the local community know.

[@Woodwarde]

I contacted one of the Southwark planners and have just been told:

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

Consultation documents on a revised Townley proposal are due to be issued tomorrow. The consultation will run until Fri 13 March.

The shovel ready scheme that was proposed and secured the original funding from TfL, for the Southwark and Safe Routes to School bid, was the recommended JMP option at that time (Option 4).

[hopskip]

So the original timetable advised for the second consultation was from 16th Feb to 6th March with 7 working days to get to the Dulwich Community Council. This was described as very tight. Now the consultation ends on the 13th March with no time to review input.

We have not yet seen any analysis of the input to the first consultation - and the only visible summary which is in the DCC January report gives 3 minor sentences to the no Right hand turn ban. I commented on other concerns such as the excessive build outs and waiting bays which will not create safety but will absolutely grind the junction to a halt. If these reappear without explanation in a second consultation then Southwark have failed in their procedural duties.

I understand that the TfL funding has to include cycling benefits. Well TfL granted the funding based on the JMP option 4 (shovel ready scheme) mentioned above. So if option 4 will not work and is not the basis of the new consultation to be issued and so we all object, then Southwark still have a very simple option. They can mark this junction properly so that it is safe and to do this within a very reasonable budget of ?10k not ?200k Plus. This was the option 5 of the JMP report.

Labour Councillors (as they are the majority) and Southwark as an example of Labour Council effectiveness do not get my vote of confidence.

[Scootingover]

The provision for the nervous cyclist waiting bays. Can anyone explain their use and general availability in Southwark. Are they common and well used features for cyclists?

[BrandNewGuy]

The 're-consultation' is now up on Southwark's site:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation

Right turn from Townley Road reisntated (as previously concede) and cycle 'pre signal' at the lights (as requested). Otherwise there's a lot of complicated crap incolving cycle bays and gates.

A preliminary conclusion: over-engineering a simple set of solutions in order to justify the ?200,000 cycle management spend.

[holymoly]

I have taken a quick look. It is not clear what has informed the 'preferred' option (ie the one that is the diagram on the consultation document) versus the options 8 through 11.

Can anyone 'guess' which option this is - clearly not 10 or 11 as they permit two lanes of traffic on Townley (left and right flows) when the proposed option is limited to a single lane.

So we are automatically locking in the conditions for this to be a problematic junction and not allowing traffic to flow adequately - or so it looks at first glance.

Any other views?

[tomdhu]

10B or 11B seem to be the the best of the bunch but as yet I can't see any difference between them.

Tom

[Scootingover]

the email below has gone out to email addresses - not sure what group, perhaps as a result of replies to the first Consultation. It is essentially the wording of the cover note of the Townley Re-Consultaiton landing page on the Southwark website. It does not clarify why this option is selected over the various schemas shown.

What is newly stated is that Mark Williams makes the final decision and of course this will be subject to referral to the Scrutiny and Oversight committee.

Dear Stakeholder

In December we consulted the local community on our proposals for improvements to the East Dulwich Grove/Townley Road/Greendale junction were focussed on improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. Our design included a proposal to ban the right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove to which there was considerable opposition.

We understand that the community needs to support our proposals and therefore we have revised the design to preserve all existing turning movements at the junction, including the right turn from Townley Road, whilst still greatly improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians. There is some loss of capacity compared to the existing situation but the junction will continue to operate within acceptable levels of saturation. This design is attached to this email and will be delivered to properties in the local area imminently.

The key elements of the design are:

? Removal of existing staggered pedestrian crossings with the implementation of shorter, single movement facilities.

? Introduction of a diagonal pedestrian crossing to link footways adjacent to both schools and cater for an existing pedestrian desire line.

? All pedestrian facilities to operate at the same time to reduce waiting time for pedestrians and improve the efficiency of the junction.

? Cycle pre-signal on Townley Road and Green Dale to allow cycles to enter the junction and undertake turning movements before general traffic.

? New signalised cycle gates on both Townley Road and Green Dale where cyclists are held on a red signal whilst general traffic movements operate. This removes the risk of both left hook and right hook collisions. (Please note that more confident cyclists will still be allowed to use the general traffic lane to traverse the junction from either Townley Road or Green Dale).

? Semi-segregated cycle lane and advanced cycle waiting area on East Dulwich Grove (westbound) to allow cyclists to bypass waiting vehicles and gain priority at the junction.

? Footway buildouts to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and to visually improve the streetscape.

? New two stage right turn facilities for cyclists to assist right turning movements into either Townley Road or Green Dale from East Dulwich Grove.

? A new semi-segregated cycle lane is proposed on Townley Road to allow cyclists to safely pass queuing traffic and access the cycle facilities at the junction.

? A new segregated cycle lane is proposed linking Calton Avenue with Townley Road to allow cyclists to bypass the Calton Avenue / Townley Road junction.

? All existing turning movements at the junction are retained, including for coaches.

We very much want to hear from as many people as possible and therefore I would urge you to respond to the consultation either via our website http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation or the paper leaflet that has been delivered to nearby properties. The consultation runs until Friday 13 March. Please do forward this email as you see fit. The website also holds more background information for anyone that is interested.

We will be holding a ?drop in? Q&A session on Saturday 28 February from 11am ? 2pm. The venue for this is still to be confirmed but venue details will be posted on the website as soon as possible. This will give anyone interested the opportunity to view the plans in greater detail and discuss any issues or questions they may have face to face with council officers.

Given the funding constraints and the need to avoid the risk of losing external grant funding and the risk in delaying any further action at this junction for a further year, we are now consulting on this amended scheme. When the public consultation is finished, the proposals will be the subject of a further report to Dulwich Community Council on 17 March. After this meeting, the final decision on whether to implement the proposal will be made publically by me in April.

Yours sincerely,

cid:[email protected]

Cllr Mark Williams

Councillor Mark Williams

Labour Member for Brunswick Park Ward

Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport

London Borough of Southwark

160 Tooley Street

London, SE1 2TZ

0207 5257730 / 07985 629095 / @markwilliams84

[slarti b]

Oh dear,

The "waiting bays for nervous cyclists" in the old scheme 7 were bad enough, the "Signalised Traffic Gates" which replace them are even worse!

These mean cyclists wait at a red light while traffic goes past, then go though to the Advanced Stop Line when the main lights are red.

So they either:

- get delayed, needing 2 changes of light to pass the junction

- bypass the cycle gates by swerving out into the traffic and losing the benefit of the cycle lane

- use the cycle lane and ignore the red cycle light

What on earth is the design team playing at? Can anyone from the council provide examples of where either "nervous cyclist bays" or "signalised traffic gates" are being used at a similar junction, or indeed anywhere?

(Google found ZERO results for "signalised traffic gates")

If not, can they provide links to cycle guidelines or some sort of evidence base to justify them?

Can they also explain which cyclists these gates are designed to help, the regular commuting cyclists (240 a day per JMP report) or the ones who may come when the possible Quietway may go through the junction. If it is based on the Quietway, what are the projections for the number of cyclists who will use these bays.

Also not convinced about the 2 stage right turns. I wonder how many cyclists will know how to use them and even if they do, will they prefer to brave the traffic and turn right rather than waiting? At least these are an established design, though opinion about them is mixed.

And they don't seem to have put cycle path markings or elephants feet to protect south bound Greendale cyclists.

[Tessmo]

Three further thoughts:

1. If Townley Road is reduced to one lane, and the big pavement build-outs go through as planned, cars turning right will be delayed by cars turning left, and vice versa. So there will be huge queues backing up Townley Road and Calton Avenue. This is likely to mean that cars will instead use local residential roads to bypass the junction - so we're back at exactly the same point we would have been if the right turn had been banned, with traffic diverted on to narrow local streets.

2. The huge pavement build-outs may mean that coaches can turn from Townley Road into EDG, but they won't be able to turn easily. They are, therefore, more likely to go down Calton Avenue, which is a cycle route and proposed Quietway.

3. If EDG westbound is reduced to one lane, the 37 bus will get stuck behind any cars turning right into Green Dale - and, because of the new parking arrangements at JAGS from building the new music school, there are likely to be quite a few cars doing this. Is TfL aware of this?

[wulfhound]

@slarti they have something like this (hard to gauge from the drawings exactly how similar, though the principle looks to be the same) at Bow Roundabout, a junction 100x worse than this, scene of several well publicised deaths from left-hook collisions. It does appear to have solved the problem there... at least, nobody's been killed there since it went in.

For commuter cyclists this feels like both overengineering and overdumbing, but I get the feeling they're anticipating a much larger number of kids cycling to school in the future, and I can see why it's a better design if they want 12-13 year olds using it (teenagers aren't great at judging hook hazards). Certainly it would help the jams if more of the kids cycled, but I can see why parents won't let them at present.

I'd have thought the cycle "gate" will remain green for the time that the "advance start" is green, so there's /some/ chance of making it straight through in one, but you're certainly more likely to hit a red than at present.

Outside school run hours perhaps they should leave the gate signal flashing amber - proceed with caution? After all, most of the time in the evening commute there's no general traffic on Green Dale.

@Tessmo - re 3., is that building work confirmed and approved? More school run cars on Green Dale is most unwelcome.