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

[Tessmo]

@wolfhound Yes, JAGS has planning permission for a Community Music Centre.

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/349676_1.pdf.

See also point 66 here

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18934

[@Woodwarde]

I will just add to that statement that Cllr Andy Simmons, Chair of the Dulwich Community Council, was involved in that planning application and has confirmed that the modelling for Townley has NOT taken into consideration any extra traffic volume and movement. This new parking area is to be built where the Scout Hut currently sits.

So traffic on EDG going east and west and traffic emerging from Townley will also see more traffic approaching and turning into Green Dale and that has not been accounted for - but it is known that it will happen.

Figure that...

[holymoly]

Has anyone looked at the statistical results tables. I can't work out how they can be correct. Some of the tables suggest reduced performance for two lane vs one lane traffic, for example on ED Grove westbound. That cannot be the case, because the traffic will move faster. What do you make of it?

[Scootingover]

The two lane options on Townley and EGD seem much the better to achieve the general cyclist and pedestrian benefits and make sure that traffic problems are not thrown to other local junctions. Otherwise we are back to square one and the inherent problems of knock on to other junctions causing additional safety concerns elsewhere. This is the same issue as the first stage of consultation!

[fazer71]

I love it yoyo junctions.

Start out with a junction which works well, make it into one which is a danger then yoyo back to the First and back again and again and again and again every few years.

We see this all over Southwark.

Genius job creation....

[Tessmo]

Where's Southwark's full report on the first consultation? Surely that's got to be provided before you can expect anyone to comment on the re-consultation?

[Robert Poste's Child]

Has anyone else had problems giving feedback online? I've been trying but the page seems to be down.

[Scootingover]

That is probably because Southwark are again putting new documents up AFTER the consultation has started! This is not reasonable or professional and a repeat of the flawed first round of consultation.

Tessmo:

It seems unusual indeed that a second consultation can happen that may embody design features that have been queried and not yet responded to.

Robert P:

I would hang on anyway - as there is more information to come and saves doing it twice. Is there a contact that you can report it to so they fix it?

[Robert Poste's Child]

Looks like it's back up again. Perhaps it was a temporary thing while they were adding new documents.

Not sure if I've misremembered but it seems like the online form has less room for comment this time - just one text box, max 500 characters.

[Tessmo]

@Robert Poste's Child - from memory, I think 500 characters was all that was allowed last time, too. I get the impression that Southwark is hoping we don't have too much to say...

I've been told that there are still some documents to come, so it might be best not to respond until all the facts and figures are out in the open. Deadline is Friday March 13.

[slarti b]

The council have come up with a reasonable scheme that improves safety for cyclists and pedestrians (removing poorly considered safety features from the last "improvement") and maintains the efficiency of the junction without diverting traffic on to rat runs; that is option 10.

Unfortunately they have chosen option 8 as their recommended option. This contains over-engineered, untested approaches and seems deliberately designed to create delays at the junction leading to similar effects as the discredited RHT ban.

I need to look through the limited data they have so far released but I have already spotted a couple of discrepancies. So far they have released only the summary results of the LINSIG modelling, I hope they release the full AECOM report soon so we can see the assumptions and timings used.

My current feeling is that option 8 is unacceptable and either 10a or 10b are the only ones that will work without causing disruption and rat-running.

[hopskip]

According to a Southwark email communication in reply to questions so far (because the full data is not yet provided), you are correct that option 10 would work. The email states:

"Option 9 is not feasible. This was an option that had previously been discarded as officers felt it was unfeasible, but following requests and for completeness, it has been drawn up and modelled. Options 10 and 11 could be feasible but on balance 8 is preferred given the wider pedestrian and cycle benefits. The only difference between A and B on each option is the provision of a protected cycle lane on East Dulwich Grove westbound in A which is omitted in B. Therefore comparing 8A with 8B, 8A is preferred for the greater cycle benefits given that the modelling shows less delay on East Dulwich Grove (the critical arm for through traffic and buses) in 8A over 8B."

It is unclear who asked for option 9 to be drawn up. Perhaps this was feedback from the original consultation although there was no option 9 in the first consultation. Anyway it seems to be out of the running.

The differences Southwark quote above are not the only ones. I see that the option A and B also have different lane capacity on the Townley Road and East Dulwich Grove East. You would imagine that two lanes would offer better junction performance and they are clearly acceptable as Southwark has said above.

[Tessmo]

I remember when Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for regeneration, planning and transport, said: ?My thanks to everyone who contributed to the recent consultation which received a significant number of responses. In light of the considerable local concerns raised by residents the right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove will remain, and I have instructed council officers to work up alternative proposals to make the junction safer. Further details on the new scheme will be presented to the Dulwich Community Council meeting in March, with a formal decision to be taken soon afterwards. We are committed to further public consultation and engagement on any new options."

What's happened so far is that Southwark has 1) started a new consultation without the necessary background documents 2) given tantalising glimpses of all the options it could have chosen, but presented as its favourite the one least likely to win public backing.

Feels like we've been here before...

[tomdhu]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> The only difference between A and

> B on each option is the provision of a protected

> cycle lane on East Dulwich Grove westbound in A

> which is omitted in B.

Not quite true.

The only option that will not result in disruption/delays to the vehicle transit is 10B as it is the only one that allows twin lane approaches to three of the four approaches. 10B gets my vote any time but the political maneuvering by Southwark ( i.e. Cllr Williams) rules out all the "B" options.

Not having a dedicated left-turn lanes on Townley and west-bound EDG would cause significant delays.

One possibility not in the options is to discontinue the right turn into Greendale because Greendale only gets minimal traffic. That way we could keep the twin lanes on EDG west bound with one going straight ahead only and the other going left into Townley.

That aside , as it stands, it is evident that Southwark are pushing the least feasible option, so I guess we have to organise ourselves and man the barriers -figuratively speaking.

[fazer71]

Can anyone explain why Southwark are pushing for the least feasible option?

Why would they do that????

[tomdhu]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Can anyone explain why Southwark are pushing for

> the least feasible option?

>

>

> Why would they do that????

My understanding is that the funding for this project comes out of a "special" govt fund. This fund is for selected projects with an implied requirement that the project should substantially support the new cycling philosophy.

Every council loves to get extra funding that they can spend, from whatever source, and hence we have a farcical situation where a perfectly good junction is to be modified at great expense- ?220,000 no less.

Hence twin traffic lanes at the junction are replaced by a single traffic lane and one cycle lane. The end result greater delays for traffic at the junction but at least the Labour Councillors will be happy as they can brag about how successful they were about squeezing money out of central government.

[lozc]

Needless to say there doesn't seem to be an option for 'abandon the whole thing, and use the 'spare' money to pay off government debt or reduce tax'.

[fazer71]

Ummm yep when people get to spend other peoples money that's the ?hit that happens.

[Green Goose]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Ummm yep when people get to spend other peoples

> money that's the ?hit that happens.

Spot on frazer71.

This is what Cllr Mark Williams said in his email of 18 February....

""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.""

Yes, he is desperate not to lose the external funding and appears willing to disregard common sense.

As far as I am concerned he totally discredited himself earlier with his tactics over the banned right turn issue.

Now he is becoming even more ridiculous by ruling out all the "B" options.

But then he is a politician - Labour Cllr for Brunswick Park Ward.

Our problem is he is also the chair of the Dulwich Community Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport.

Even worse, he will be making the final decision on the project.

[Villager]

Reminds me of Maggie T's observation that "Socialists always run out of other people's money".

[Villager]

Professor Friedman also made similar observations and came to the conclusion that there were "4 Ways Of Spending" viz...

1) Spend your own money on yourself.

2) Spend your own money on somebody else.

3) Spend somebody else?s money on yourself.

4) Spend somebody else?s money on somebody else.

He concluded that 4th way of spending is the worst way of spending.

The Townley Road project is a classic case of No. 4

[fazer71]

Villager Wrote:

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

> Reminds me of Maggie T's observation that

> "Socialists always run out of other people's

> money".

ummm yep "Socialism a plague on all progressive humanity but being a blessing for the incurable socialist political elite".

And the turkeys keep voting for Christmas. :(

[Zebedee Tring]

Without in any away condoning the role of Cllr Mark Williams in this sorry affair, although he is the relevant Cabinet Member, he is not the Chair of the DCC - this is Cllr Andy Simmons.

There is plenty to criticise in these latest proposals and about the way that so-called "consultation" has taken place. However, this thread now seems to be turning into a Labour/Socialist bashing session. This is no way to get the politicians to change their minds. Any politician reading such posts will say "Oh, it's just a load of bloody Tories in Dulwich sounding off, we don't need to listen to them."

[Tessmo]

From what I've read on the website so far (and we haven't seen all the documents yet), the option Southwark has chosen is the one that's full of untested safety features. It's as if the money from TfL is being used to pay for a very expensive experiment. This isn't reasonable. The priority is safety. We need evidence that the proposed changes will work - or, at the very least, that they won't make the junction worse.

[wulfhound]

Can anyone explain why Southwark are pushing for the least feasible option?

Why would they do that????

They're not. Look at the "Results Table" in the consultation. 9s are the worst and have been ruled out because of that; 11s are second-worst; 10s have the best performance in the AM peak and 8s are best in the PM peak. Overall there's not that much in it between 8 and 10, according to the models they've posted.

Bear in mind that wider roads (2 lane approaches) = lights need to be held red for longer for pedestrians to cross. Conversely, narrower junctions = shorter reds. I suspect that's the reason for the weird bottle-neck-shaped cycle bays.. they want to be able to hold a load of bikes (ultimately perhaps 2-3x as many as now) at the light without putting them in front of traffic (fine for commuter cyclists, not fine for 11 year olds), but they have to keep the pavements as close as possible to keep crossing times short for pedestrians.

From what I've read on the website so far (and we haven't seen all the documents yet), the option Southwark has chosen is the one that's full of untested safety features.

It's as if the money from TfL is being used to pay for a very expensive experiment. This isn't reasonable. The priority is safety. We need evidence that the proposed changes will work - or, at the very least, that they won't make the junction worse.

It seems very clear to me that the new design is an improvement on what's there now for pedestrians. The new cycling bits are likely to be *safer* than what's there now (with one or two exceptions - not sure about the semi segregated feeder lane southbound on East Dulwich Grove, for example), but whether they're more *convenient*, I wouldn't like to say. My guess is, at busy times it'll be a bit nicer to cycle than at present, but at quieter times it'll be a bit worse (cyclists likely to get held at a red "gate" signal needlessly). Definitely feels like a safety-first design, though.

I can't imagine any of it is entirely untested - they wouldn't be allowed to put it in if it were, think of the lawsuits. I'm told they had to get special dispensation just to allow bikes on the zebra crossing at Gipsy Hill roundabout, so something as major as this has surely been signed off by the high-ups.