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

[davidk]

What a mess. I won't be using any of the cycle specific infrastructure that is being put in and the new design won't encourage anyone to start using their bike through there who doesn't already. Complete failure from a cycling perspective.

[mockingbird]

>>Wulfhound said

>>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.

It is unclear what design approaches are being used (they are not LCDS, we have been old that) - but some clues appear in the 'newly added' background and FAQ on the Southwark website.

Clearly a design can't be 'non-compliant' unless specifically an approved exception or permitted that way, but that still leaves plenty scope. And Southwark are all for scope creep.

As the new FAQ tells us :

"Two-stage right turns. This is a new and relatively un-tested concept in the UK and it is proposed to trial it at this junction following further discussion with TfL."

It looks increasingly like Southwark is most interested in creating a design that costs ?200k. This original bid was to create safety for pedestrians and cyclists and is being distorted out of all proportion. Why has such a complicated junction proposal, at this time limited part of the consultation, introduced such new features.

[Tessmo]

@wolfhound It may not be entirely untested, but that's about as good as it gets. See pages 4 and 5 of the 'Townley Road re-consultation background options' document on the website http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4080/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation. As far as I know, the cycle bays for nervous cyclists are also untried.

It's not all good for pedestrians either. The crossing distances are shorter, but doing away with traffic islands completely is not good news for those who appreciate being able to stop and rest (the elderly, or people with disabilities). There's also the fact that the crossing distances are only shorter because the corners have been built out such a long way. This means that large vehicles will have to swing out and turn very slowly, which again might cause problems for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Traffic planners obviously have a difficult job when they're trying to weigh up all the different features - especially if the money on the table is specifically tied to cycling improvements. But it seems in this case, based on the figures we've seen so far, that option 10 works just as well. Option 10 isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't include lots of new features that haven't been tested. It's also likely to allow for better movement of cars/delivery vans/school coaches (all of which won't go away if you've got a junction between two independent secondary schools that are constantly growing and building).

What we don't want it is junction that doesn't work properly, so that we end up with unintended consequences, like large vehicles taking short cuts down residential roads or traffic jams that create pedestrian dangers at other junctions. This is an area where lots of schoolchildren already walk and cycle to school. It's important that Southwark looks at the area as a whole, and makes sure that changes to the junction at Townley Road will not cause safety problems elsewhere.

[wulfhound]

10 = longer crossing distances and no islands either. I'm not opposed to islands per se, when their use is optional & they're provided for those with wobbly legs, or if you've got a big dual carriageway style road that can't practically be crossed in one go - but designs where pedestrians get penned in every time for the sake of maximizing traffic flow should be thrown in the bin.

Good point though re large vehicles. In particular, I'd like to see them publish a swept path drawing for coaches turning right EDG/Townley. Doesn't look great for cyclists waiting in the two-stage right (EDG to Green Dale) or indeed the Calton advance stop box in that case; there are other junctions where Southwark have gotten this wrong & oncoming or turning traffic routinely cuts across the ASL (if you ever cycle down Camberwell Grove, the ASL at the railway bridge is particularly bad for this - stay well left or prepare to get flattened). Anyway, I'm sure they'll have done such drawings so we should ask for them to be published.

@mockingbird they're not LCDS..? Surely it has to meet TfL LCDS if there's supposed to be a Quietway through the middle of it in a year or so? Otherwise what is the point of such standards existing?

[@Woodwarde]

WHound, I can help on that.

An email exchange with the Southwark planners touched on LCDS

Question:

Can you also please confirm whether the LDCS have been specified by TfL for the original and revised Townley designs, and if so, when was this requirement imposed?

Southwark ANSWER

"No"

Question:

LCDS were approved in Oct 2014 as far as I can see. Can you advise where else they have been used to date?

Southwark ANSWER

LCDS was officially released in December 2014. Southwark has not formally adopted them at this stage.

You make an important point about the coaches whose turning circle is changed with the large build outs.

Are you going to ask for the swept path drawings for the various roads used by the coaches?

[Tessmo]

@wolfhound Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I know option 10 doesn't have traffic islands either. I was trying to make the point that it's all about weighing up different options. If you build out great big pavements in order to make pedestrian crossings shorter but, by doing that, you create lots of other problems for 1) large vehicles that need wide turning circles, or 2) cyclists who need plenty of room, good visibility and drivers who can see they (the drivers) don't have right of way, or 3) pedestrians who can't cross the road all in one go, how do you decide which design features to choose? I just think, at the moment, that Southwark is too focused on new and untested features, rather than thinking more practically about what will achieve the aim of cyclist and pedestrian safety at a junction that's crucial for traffic flow in a residential area.

[Tessmo]

Also, it's a bit late now, in a re-consultation phase - when there won't even be time to report properly on community feedback before the new proposal is rushed to cabinet (in the person of Cllr Mark Williams) - to introduce brand-new features. If Southwark planners really thought these new features were important, they should have been introduced for the November 2014 consultation. Life can be challenging, as we all know, but Southwark seems to excel at making it particularly difficult.

[Bicknell]

Why only one lane on Townley Rd? Won't that slow things up?

[BrandNewGuy]

Yes, it will. The pavement build-out plus the nervous cyclists 'pen' makes this inevitable. As the Council seems not to have mentioned this, my concern is that they will make all the expensive changes, there'll be an outcry about the queues at Townley Road and they'll come up with a solution ? ban right-hand turns. Can someone tell me I'm being paranoid?

[mikeb]

@BNG - I share your suspicion.

This is going to be an extraordinary junction after this refit - all sorts of random cycling measures selected like a child in a sweet shop. Very experimental.

There are two changes that I will be suggest to the consultation

1. narrow the pavements, which in the plan would be easily wider than the road. There is plenty of space here for two lanes on TR, a decent width cycle lane and pedestrians.

2. remove the island about 30m down Townley Road. Between the junction and the zebra crossing, I would have thought there are plenty of opportunities to cross Townley Road. So the main effect is to narrow the road for traffic, causing more queues and pressure on the cycle lane. I think most people currently use this to avoid the dog-leg crossing at the junction, where it feels like you need to go backwards to make progress.

[first mate]

I do not think you are being paranoid.

There appears to be a deliberate agenda throughout ED and surrounding areas to make changes that place ever greater pressures on traffic flow and parking- both Labour and Lib Dems would like to see a massive reduction in cars and everyone out on bikes and they will use fair means or foul to achieve that. The sudden appearance of yellow lines everywhere, the imposition of restricted parking where there was none before and odd experimental junction changes, like Townley, all seem to point to one thing. Changes are also being made to Northcross Road and every time you ask why a different explanation is given ranging from 'safety' to making the junction 'nicer and more appealing for users'. What is not apparent is the evidence to support the need for all these exepnsive changes.

I don't know where the Tories are on this. It seems though that no councillor of any party is prepared to stick their necks out on the issues above, we are simply being told what will happen. The process of consulation seems dodgy on a variety of issues and, in my view, is merely window dressing to meet certain statutory requirements.

[Bicknell]

That was going to be my next question.

If there are things about the re-consultation we object to, will local councillors back us up? Or do they support the scheme the way it is now?

[Green Goose]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> If there are things about the re-consultation we

> object to, will local councillors back us up? Or

> do they support the scheme the way it is now?

1.The Labour-dominated Southwark Council will get this through no matter what we say. They are more determined than ever since the first scheme met resistance. Cabinet Minster & Cllr Mark Williams will force this through the system regardless.

2. They didnt give us any choice out of all the various options ie they have only put up for consultation their preferred choice.

3.Funding comes from a Government pro-cycling budget so we are going to get a mish-mash of cycling dominated features that give no practical benefits. Show me a Council that will pass up the chance of spending "free" money.

4. Cllr Mark Williams has ruled out all the "B" options to give this scheme a deliberate pro-cycling bias at the expense of vehicle traffic. Narrowing the road and having single lane approaches to the lights will only delay traffic.

5. If Cllr Mark Williams (Lab Bruswich Park) forces this proposal through then just remember how you vote the next time there are local govt elections!

GG

[Bicknell]

What about Tessa Jowell? Worth writing to her?

[Green Goose]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> What about Tessa Jowell? Worth writing to her?

Naah, Jowell has said she is stepping down at the end of this parliament and will get a seat on the gravy train aka the House of Lords. (The same career path was planned out for Jack Straw but it seems he might have got tripped up a few days ago.) Don't you just love politicians?

One way to fight this is to let these Labour Southwark Councillors know that they will be held accountable come the next election.

Labour holds every cabinet portfolio in the Southwark assembly so we hold them accountable if they force this through.

The only way to oppose this proposal is to respond to the on-line consultation but it is useful also to email objections directly to:-

[email protected] Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport and

[email protected] - Leader of Southwark Council.

[email protected] - Chairman of Dulwich Community Council

GG

[hopskip]

What about the Parliamentary candidates. They must have a view?

[Bicknell]

Lots of people talking about this in the pub last night. General view its a bad plan and if it goes thorugh will have to be redone at great expense(as per usual). I'm asking James Barber what he thinks. Anyone got a list of the parliamentary candidates(apart from Tessa Jowell)?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

On the first consultation I thoguht I was crystal clear in objecting and telling people how they could object or support the first proposals.

I haven't yet had a chance to look at the new proposals but will this weekend.

It is true I think a bigger proportion of us need to walk and cycle more - three reasons.

With plans to grow London by 1.5 million people (which I personally don't like or agree with but can;t see how to avoid them) but no plans for urban motorways, etc the only way the current roads will cope is more people walking and cycling. Any new public transport will just be maintaining the current proportions using public transport.

Then their is the huge health time bomb of obesity, heart disease and mental health which more active life styles assist coping with them. Without this the NHS will sink.

And as important as the others is the need to reduce CO2 emissions. We could see a drastic reduction by using better technology but more walking and cycling is the moe efficient way of doing this.

[first mate]

James,

While I may agree that it would be great if more people could get on their bikes, this should be a matter of choice. It feels as though the decision making is being done for us, with an illusion of consultation.

The forced changes to hitherto unrestricted parking and to various junctions, are making a lot of people very angry and I am not convinced that the Lib Dems object in any real way to these changes.

As others have said, this high-handed approach will not be forgotten come election time.

[Townleygreen]

first mate, you don't seem to have read James B's post fully. He outlined there that London cannot cope with as much motor traffic as its population grows. Etcetera!

So we need to focus on pedestrians, cycling and public transport. So the council is being realistic - one could argue.

So it isn't a question of CHOICE, first mate. Can't you see that?

It will be futile and short sighted to try to blame political parties for actually planning for the future rather than just carrying on as if we can live this way forever. Which is clearly unsustainable.

[Duvaller]

first mate,

I'm not convinced about the intentions of the LibDems on this as yet but their numbers on the Council are very small.

Fundamentally this is a Labour-driven proposal led by Cllr Mark Williams and his cohorts. They are the ones who want to spend the ?220,000 to achieve little apart from delaying the traffic.

So as to make it easier for us all to remind them that there will be accountability at election time , here are all their email addresses:-

East Dulwich Ward

[email protected]; (Lab)

College Ward

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

Brunswick Park Ward

[email protected], (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected] (Lab)

Other Wards

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected];(Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[email protected]; (Lab)

[Townleygreen]

so Duvaller, you're a head in the sand type too, eh?

[Tessmo]

@townleygreen @James Barber

I don't think there's any question of anyone not supporting the principle of making cycling and walking easier or safer. (I think you should have read the re-consultation document by now, James. It doesn't take long, and it's a big issue for everyone round here.)

But my feeling is that the new junction proposal is going to introduce new hazards.

This is a junction that's used daily by big buses and coaches (which is good - school coaches mean fewer cars). But because of the huge pavement build-outs, these large vehicles are going to be forced to swing out a long way in order to get round. Is that going to make the junction safer for pedestrians and cyclists?

Southwark tells us that the pavement build-outs have to be so huge because the crossing distances must be shorter. But the new diagonal crossing that's been introduced looks pretty long to me...

Added to all this, the new cycle features that have been sprung on us all at the 11th hour are not tried and tested. Or at least the two-stage right turns have only been tested in Copenhagen, the signalised cycle gates have been tried at roundabouts, and the waiting bays for nervous cyclists haven't been tested at all. While these features MAY be good news, they could equally be a total disaster. No one knows.

In every other area of life (except perhaps falling in love and drinking too much), decisions are based on evidence and experience.

If this junction yet again turns out to be an expensive nightmare, hated equally by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, and eventually Southwark is forced to bow to public pressure and agrees it must be re-done, who is going to pay to put it right?

[Duvaller]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> so Duvaller, you're a head in the sand type too,

> eh?

Not an accurate classification.

More accurately I am a regular cyclist and pedestrian but very occasional driver who has never had a problem with this junction and I can't see any real benefit arising from the proposed changes. They will only delay the vehicular traffic and frustrate the drivers more. One result may be that some drivers from Townley turning right will cross over late after the lights have turned red.

[Townleygreen]

"One result may be that some drivers from Townley turning right will cross over late after the lights have turned red." (Duvaller)

The answer to that would surely be to put in a red light camera to cover that? I've suggested that earlier on this thread.