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

[Duvaller]

Irrespective of all the arguments arising from this particular consultation, what it has revealed is a glaring discrepancy in the consultation process.

The discrepancy is the absence of any costings in the consultation document. Southwark say it is not their policy to provide costings to the public! Hello..

Most people I spoke to thought the changes to the junction would cost around ?25,000 and were horrified to learn that it close to 1/4 ?Million

I contend that the full budget cost of any proposal that goes to consultation should be included in every consultation package.

[James Barber]

Hi Wulfhound,

The E&C cycle bypass keeps being messed around with. Curerently the Chruchyard Row section has what in my view is an illegal diversion through a park. The New Kent Road toucan crossing was donw graded by Ken Livingstone to a pelican crossing and under Boris moved 200m out of alignment. Southwark Council have also closed Elephant Road cycle contraflow. So frankly the council and TfL are doing as much as they can to remove the cycle bypass by stealth - that's why so many use the main roads. They don't have the time be messed around.

@Woodwarde,

Whether you think a diagonal crossing is a good or bad idea - that is how the majority of chilren are already using the crossing. Either you cater for it or the junction remains dangerous. The officer advice is that this junction is dangerous and should be changed before we have serious injuries.

I can think of other locatinos where a diagonal crossing would be particualrly useful e.g. East Dulwich Raod with Crystal Palace Raod and Adys Road.

[fazer71]

Duvaller Great idea but that isn?t the real problem

The issues run deeper that disclosure of cost it?s the actual costs.

There is a basic loss of control over costs and reality.

The UK public sector has an comical inability to calculate cost (basic maths) those who spend our money appear to have absolutely no understanding of basic maths.

In a possible breakdown of the work required.

1. The number of workmen ( we all see the workers usually there?s a maximum of 6 usually 2 working over a period of say a month a maximum of 30 work days.)

If they earn ?250 a day each (I doubt they do) that?s ?45,000

2. Materials (?20,000 or so for kerb stones hardcore and tarmac) say ?40,000 max.

3. Reuse of the traffic lights etc ( re-program a day ?250 by a man with a pc)

4. Worst ways a total of ?85,250 for the actual work.

5. Which then gives ?134,750 of the ?220,000 budget to pay for management wages backhanders for what appears to be a rather large profit ?..?

Maybe they pay their workers ?1,000 a day?

So numbers are what ever the contractor can get away with ? Southwark appears to have the choice of on a couple of contractors who take it in turns to give the best fake low high price.

It's criminal ?

No wonder we tax payers pay two to five times the going rate for everything.

Central government are little better paying ?30million to ?60million for a mile of motorway quite insane!

In Spain

Road costs (average prices):

Building:

Conventional road: ? 3M/km.

Motorway: ? 4M/km.

Over/underpasses: ? 700/m2.

Maintenance (annual cost):

Secondary road: ? 6,000/km.

Main road: ? 9,000/km .

High-capacity road: ? 18,000/km.

Motorway: ? 42,000/km.

Pothole repair: Between ? 35,000/km - ? 65,000/km.

Cleaning: ? 45/km

In the UK

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/dec/13/guardiansocietysupplement3

[Green Goose]

Mark Williams, Cabinet Member for Southwark, has just confirmed that the so-called "drop in" session will be held on Saturday 28th February 2015 from 11am ? 2pm at St. Barnabas Hall.

What's the guess that there will be no Councillors present and that they will keep below the radar because they do not want to face a vocal bunch of local residents who disagree with the proposal - like at the last meeting?

Expect another appearance from un-elected representatives like Tim Warin.

[slarti b]

@Jennys

Apologies for getting too technical. I do a lot of business modelling at work and am very used to analysing numbers and getting to grips with new functional areas. I have also spent a LOT of time over the last couple of months looking at traffic surveys and so on. I appreciate not everyone has got quite as involved ( or is quite as nerdy!) To summarise in more everyday terms...

Southwark are assessing how efficiently the junction works by using a software package called LinSig. In the report released on the web site they show the results of the LinSig modelling (carried out by a company called AECOM) for the different options they have put forward. Southwark are using these results to help justify their recommendation of option 8A. My points are:

1) AECOM have produced two reports using what should be the same base comparison data. In two of the three cases the base data has changed which means one of the reports is wrong. This undermines both reports and makes me question the competence of AECOM.

2) Southwark are making a misleading claim about how well option 8A works. In particular during the AM peak when East Dulwich Grove (EDG) traffic is much worse than the base scenario.

3) Southwark admit that option 10A gives the best performance in the morning peak. In the evening peak and mid-day, option 8A appears to perform better. But, I suspect they have arranged the traffic light timings for these periods to get the result they want. If they optimised the timings I expect option 10A would give best results in all periods

4) Southwark say the maximum distance pedestrians should have to cross a road is 12 m and use this against option 10A. However, their own option 8A has a diagonal crossing13.67 m, thus contradicting themselves.

I believe that the AECOM reports and the conclusions drawn by Southwark are flawed. My conclusion is the traffic modelling and proposed junction schemes should be reviewed by a competent, independent traffic consultancy.

Glossary

Degree of Saturation (DoS) Measure as to how busy each road at the junction is. If greater than 100% it is oversaturated ( too busy!)

Conway AECOM - Often referred to (by themselves and others) as AECOM. A joint venture between the traffic consultancy AECOM and FM Conway. I believe FM Conway are the in-house contractors used by Southwark for road building and maintenance work

http://www.fmconway.co.uk/construct/ConstructSummer2013/files/assets/basic-html/page5.html see http://www.conwayaecom.com/about-us.html

AECOM carried out LinSig modelling for the junction, published in February 2014, which was incorrectly used to justify the now discarded option 7. They have also modelled the latest options 8A - 11B.

JMP - An independent traffic consultancy that was commissioned by Southwark to produce a junction safety report released in December 2012. JMP carried out a traffic survey, developed 6 options for improving safety and carried out LinSig modelling on them. Their Option 4 was used to apply for the TFL funding.

Traffic Periods

AM Peak 08:00- 09:00, Inter Peak 12:00- 13:00, PM Peak 17:00- 18:00

[James Barber]

Hi slarti b,

That is useful. Thank you.

Do you want me to ask these questions of council officers or have you or will you on Saturday?

Hi Goose Green,

Do you really expect 9 councillors to hang around for at this public exhibition for several hours probably ohgging the officer time asking questions that will be documented in the report that comes to us anyway?

This exhibition si about residents having a chance to ask questions.

I pesnally think a publci meeting would have been better where everyone hears the answers to other questions. But the council administration prefer lots of 121 conversations.

This weekend I'll take a look at all the documentation.

[Jennys]

You have explained everything very clearly Slarti b. Thank you. By the way, I had not realised that AECCOM is the well known Southwark favourite Conway wearing a different hard hat. Enough said.

[slarti b]

@Cllr Barber,

I will try and get to the session on Saturday but, even if I can make it, I am not confident of getting answers to my queries. I would would appreciate it if you could ask the questions and I hope that you, as a councillor, will get proper replies.

Since the modelling used to help justify the council's option has been carried out by a joint venture between FM Conway and AECOM could you also ask the following questions ?

- If Southwark goes ahead with work on the junction will it be carried out by FM Conway?

- The person named in Nov 2014 as Southwark's prime contact for the original consultation was Chris Mascord. Who is he employed by?

(according to his linkedin profile he works, not for Southwark Council, but for AECOM)

Southwark have stated they need to comply with latest best practise so:

- Since the scheme is to be funded by TFL can Southwark confirm they have complied with the TFL traffic modelling guidelines (See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/traffic-modelling-guidelines.pdf)

- In particular, can they confirm that the modeller, Martyn Gould, has complied with Sections 2.6 and 2.7 ?

[Villager]

It is reported in the Dulwich Society newsletter that Southwark Council have confirmed that the proposed "Southwark Spine" cycle route through Dulwich Park has been withdrawn, after stiff opposition.

That's good news for residents in Eynella who were not consulted on the Townley Road proposal but it could mean that the cyclists will have to cut through the Calton Ave/Dulwich Village/Turney Road junction.

Now, that is a junction that needs urgent reworking from a safety aspect as it has 4.5 times the number of accidents over the last 9 years compared to the Townley Rd/E.D.G. junction.

Tom

[Green Goose]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Hi Goose Green,

> Do you really expect 9 councillors to hang around

> for at this public exhibition for several hours

> probably ohgging the officer time asking questions

> that will be documented in the report that comes

> to us anyway?

> This exhibition si about residents having a chance

> to ask questions.

> I pesnally think a publci meeting would have been

> better where everyone hears the answers to other

> questions. But the council administration prefer

> lots of 121 conversations.

Hi James,

Looking at your typos, I apologise if I touched a tender spot but no one is expecting all 9 DCC members to be there at one time but having one accountable Southwark Councillor would seem to be constructive.

Similarly, many of us are not happy that the two nominated representatives are consultants employed by AECOM and I will use a quote from an earlier post........

"""Conway AECOM - Often referred to (by themselves and others) as AECOM. A joint venture between the traffic consultancy AECOM and FM Conway. FM Conway are the in-house contractors used by Southwark for road building and maintenance work [www.fmconway.co.uk] see [www.conwayaecom.com] """

As they did the research and designed the proposal they are hardly likely to be totally objective and pass on any/all negative issues raised by the public. Bear in mind also that Conway most probably would be awarded the contract for the works -just a they were on all the other works on East Dulwich Grove last year - e.g. pavement buildouts, raised platforms etc etc.

They only just finished the works at the junction of Hillsboro Rd/EDG about 8 weeks ago and it would appear that this will have to be modified if this proposal goes through.

It stinks!

[holymoly]

Villager wrote

_____

That's good news for residents in Eynella who were not consulted on the Townley Road proposal but it could >>mean that the cyclists will have to cut through the Calton Ave/Dulwich Village/Turney Road junction.

_____

The reconsultation document covers a larger development area than the first. You will see that it includes a segregated cycle line right to the junction with Carlton Avenue and assumes cyclists will cut off that corner.

What this implies in terms of connecting it to any other cycling related development for Carlton is not clear. What it means in terms of reducing available pavement size is another consideration. Perhaps these are questions for the meeting on Saturday for the Carlton and Great Spillmans folks.

[Zebedee Tring]

Wouldn't it be good if Southwark (through Cllr Mark Williams) were to say "Boris Johnson and Tfl have given us ?200K to rework the Townley/EDG junction. However, unlike certain politicians who love their vanity projects, we are very keen to save public money and will not be spending the ?200K by making a mildly unsafe junction a much more unsafe one".

This would be a good move in an election year. But most unlikely.

[Scootingover]

Update from Dulwich&HerneHill SafeRoutes to School

Sent: 26 February 2015 20:57

To:

Subject: Townley Road Junction Improvements - Urgent Action Required

Dear all

Time is absolutely critical now for the proposed changes to Townley Road Junction. Can you please advertise Saturday's drop in information session within your school or associationas a matter of urgency.

This is our very last chance to improve the Junction. Any work must be carried out this summer, as funding will expire in the next financial year.

There are over 1,450 child pedestrian movements at the junction each morning between 8-9am. Southwark have a traffic report demonstrating that the junction as it is now designed is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

Please ask as many parents as possible to go onto the Southwark Council website and comment on the scheme. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation

Deadline for comments is 13th March.

If the message below could be forwarded on I would be very grateful. I have attached the document from Southwark about why the other Junction proposals were rejected and some background on the scheme.

Thank you for your assistance and please do email me if you have any queries.

Best wishes

(Secretary)

Townley Road Junction Scheme Re-Consultation

Have you say

Drop in ?Q&A? Session

A drop in session will be held on Saturday 28th February 2015 from 11am ? 2pm. This will provide opportunity for local residents and stakeholders to view the plans, and to directly engage with council officers and discuss the proposed changes in detail or get answers to particular points of detail that are not covered here.

The drop in session will be held at:

St Barnabas Church Hall

23 Dulwich Village

London SE21 7BT

The responses to the questionnaire will be analysed and taken into account before a final decision is taken on the proposals. The consultation results for both the original consultation and the re-consultation will be reported at the Dulwich Community Council meeting on the 17th March 2015.

Following the Community Council meeting, the final decision on whether to proceed with the scheme will be taken by Cllr Mark Williams, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, and Transport, in April 2015.

Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School Group

c/o Alleyn's Junior School

Townley Road

LONDON SE22 8SU

[Duvaller]

Study of the re-consultation shows that the Technical Note (Issue 3) does not contain crucial data that was included in the earlier report.

The missing data suggest that the tail-backs at the junction will almost double during peak hours.

The table below shows the PCU ( Passenger Car Units) for each arm of the junction before and after the proposed works.

For example Townley Road in the AM goes from 6.4 to 12.3 PCUs. That aside their figures seem understated as, from my experience, the tailbacks on EDG WestBound AM regularly get up to around 20 PCUs

http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/tomdhu/Traffic%20queues_2.jpg

I just wonder why such crucial data was omitted.

[hopskip]

Duvaller

which two documents are you comparing? Can you provide the links.

Good idea to look at the header sections for comparison purposes.

[bawdy-nan]

Trying to read this thread to understand what the objections to the new proposals are but I can't really see what they are. I understood and agreed with objections to the no right turn proposals because it didn't meet the brief of improving safety (and likely made other junctions more dangerous).

These revised plans appear to make the crossings much safer for vulnerable road users at peak time (ie school children) with a minor inconvenience at peak time to car users (ie the increase in potential queuing. Is it that that is the main issue: shifting the burden of waiting time from pedestrians to cars at peak times?

[Duvaller]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Duvaller

> which two documents are you comparing? Can you

> provide the links.

The table I provided came from the Final 2014 Report on the Townley Rd junction.

Here is the link...

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11335/east_dulwich_grove_townley_road_junction_safety_review

What is apparent is that there huge discrepancies between both - particularly in the volume of traffic and the queue lengths. Here's the link and corresponding tables from the Southwark web site as of today:-

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4080/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation

http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/tomdhu/Townley%20Queues.jpg

[Green Goose]

Looking at the supporting documentation on Southwark's ReConsultation, top of the list is SRS original case for making the junction safer. It gives the opinion that the junction is unsafe but fails to give any supporting statistics or information. Here's the link....

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4025/townley_road-_previous_junction_safety_reviews_and_background_information

Based on that, Southwark and TFL were persuaded to throw ?220,000 at the "problem".

It beggars belief.

[Zebedee Tring]

As I have already suggested, they don't have to spend the money. They could just forego it and do their bit towards avoiding wasting scarce public sector dosh and spending it on something more socially useful.

[bawdy-nan]

So, are you saying that you oppose any alteration to the junction on principle because you see it as a waste of money?

When I attended the public meeting about this I heard lots of explanations from parents and residents (especially of Greendale) about why they felt the junction was dangerous for the large number of children using the junction and the observations from the council officials mapping pedestrian movements across the roads show diagonal crossing and avoiding the penned islands, I think. (I may have misunderstood this, but that is my understanding).

My children don't use this particular crossing and I tend not to use the Greendale cycle route but I can absolutely see why it is felt necessary to make improvements. I don't understand why you would want to block this if the objection is just that you don't want to see the changes made.

Secondly, isn't the money coming from outside the borough? ie, it isn't a Southwark overspend. I think the mayoral budget for cycling improvements is hugely under-spent in any case, although I don't know if this is the same pot.

I am surprised by the vehement opposition to this new proposal. I thought I must have missed something.

I wondered if it were being made on party political grounds but the mix of mayoral and southwark impetus and cash here would suggest not.

I'm slightly baffled.

[Zebedee Tring]

No, I don't oppose ANY alteration to the junction. However, I DO oppose massive expenditure on an unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous scheme when a much more satisfactory scheme could be adopted a fraction of the cost. Many people who understand the technicalities of this much better than I do have outlined such alternatives at length on this thread, which you can read at your leisure if you haven't already done so.

I thought that you would support the careful spending of public money (yes, I did realise that it is TFL money, but that is public money just as much as Southwark money). There's too little money around for it to be wasted.

[Villager]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> When I attended the public meeting about this I

> heard lots of explanations from parents and

> residents (especially of Greendale) about why they

> felt the junction was dangerous...

I was at the same meeting too and I cannot recall anyone explaining why it was dangerous. Also, your view is not supported by statistics. In 9 years there has been only 3 minor incidents. None involving pedestrians. No fatalities. No recorded injuries.

The junction at Dulwich Village/Calton/Turney Rd has four times the number of incidents. That's where the money should go.

> Secondly, isn't the money coming from outside the

> borough? ie, it isn't a Southwark overspend. I

> think the mayoral budget for cycling improvements

> is hugely under-spent in any case, although I

> don't know if this is the same pot.

Why waste money (wherever it comes from) when it isn't needed here. If you had a spare ?1 million in cash of your own money to spend it on safety, would you spend it here? I think not.

>

> I am surprised by the vehement opposition to this

> new proposal. I thought I must have missed

> something.

I'm afraid you did. The money "that came from outside the Borough" originally came from taxpayer's pockets!

>

> I wondered if it were being made on party

> political grounds but the mix of mayoral and

> southwark impetus and cash here would suggest

> not.

Your suggestion is correct. It is the principle of wasting money that came from hard working taxpayers that went into pot that should be spent where it does the most good.

> I'm slightly baffled.

I hope this has helped to clarify matters

[hopskip]

Villager - I too was at the meeting and there were NO comments to support the specific proposal itself as outlined. The secretary of Dulwich Safe Routes for Schools spoke as did the incoming Chair (Claire?), both of them making a plea not to lose the funding and opportunity for ensuring safety. They advised they did not know about the specific design selected until they saw it at consultation. I did see some young teenagers speaking to the Councillors afterwards - they were the grandchildren of a long standing cycling advocate active with Dulwich Safe Routes (also active with Dulwich Society, Southwark Cyclists and Living Streets).

The issue, surely, is one of proportionality at such a complicated junction. This junction can be made safe without the over-engineered aspects that have been built in specifically to meet the funding requirements - ie TfL require demonstration of cycling benefits as this money has come from the TfL 'cycling' fund.

If Southwark believes this to be a real issue of safety, they will no doubt be concerned about that and apply Southwark funds to achieve an outcome that is proportionate and achieves safety without causing problems at adjacent junctions and unwarranted disruption for locals.

[bawdy-nan]

Yes, much clearer, I think. Originally there was dissent because of the no right turn and the impact that might have (increased busyness at other junctions, u-turns in Greendale, impact on side streets etc).

Now the focus of opposition has coalesced around a tax-payers alliance ish opposition to the spending of money on safety improvements which the opposers don't deem necessary, Because there haven't yet been collisions or accidents. There's also some opposition to the idea of prioritising cycling.

I can't get a sense of how powerfully opposed this remains now that the no right turn objections have been satisfied. there was a very active residents campaign (biscuits etc) are those people still opposed I wonder.

[James Barber]

Hi slarti b,

Happy to ask those questions.

Hi goose green,

Apologies for types and being sensitive.