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

[hopskip]

What about you bawdy-nan. Are you fully for this proposal and confident that 8a is the best all round option?

[bawdy-nan]

Honestly, I'm not sure. I do think the junction needs improving in terms of safety (absence of child deaths notwithstanding) for pedestrians and cyclists and I am very pleased that the no right turn has been abandoned. But I don't feel qualified to weigh up the various options and agitate for my favoured option. I'd probably be ok with whatever's plumped for as long as it encourages large groups of children to use a crossing rather drifting across the road and improves the visibility or safety of the Greendale cyclists.

I think it is a good thing that the first phase consultation led to a change but I'm no traffic planner and I think I'm reasonably happy to delegate the detail to the people paid to do it. It won't please everyone but it's good enough for me.

[Zebedee Tring]

Bawdy nan, if you yourself don't know what the best option is, why are you tarring people who have genuine concerns about Southwark's favoured option with the Taxpayers Alliance brush? What's wrong with preferring a cheaper but satisfactory option to a very expensive and totally unsatisfactory option? As far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that NO money at all should be spent on a solution.

[tomdhu]

ZBT, I am opposed also and my reasons, below, may possibly help crystallise the views of many other dissenters.

1. Southwark have confirmed that their proposed option (8A) will result in a reduction of capacity for traffic through the junction. Fact.

2. This is the inevitable result of reducing the number of lanes and having tighter corners.

3. This capacity reduction results in longer tail backs.

4. These tailbacks result in greater pollution and delays to buses, cars, cyclists and commercial traffic.

5. Southwark have gone for the most expensive option with lots of fancy new features, some never used before (cyclist gates)

6. Southwark isn't paying for it so they are happy to spend like a drunken sailor. Your/our taxes (paid to HMRC) is paying.

7. The optimum solution is Option 10B.

8. The modelling for Southwark's proposal and its design was done by Conway-Aecom. The consultants from Conway-Aecom will be hosting today's drop-in session. And yes, you've guessed it, the construction contract will go to Conways.

Best to look at the data table that was posted yesterday. Here are the definitions:-

MMQ= Mean Maximum Queue

PCU = Passenger Car Unit

DoS= Degree of Saturation

If you look at Townley Rd in the AM, the MMQ on option 8A is 40.7 PCUs whereas in 10B it is 24 PCU.- ie the tailback on Townley will be almost DOUBLE.

For the PM table the MMQ on 8A is 15.9 wherewas 10B gives 5.4 ie the tail back on Southwarks proposal is THREE times worse.

That's just a taste but as a systems modeler, in my opinion there are some serious discrepancies with their data which (dare I say it) might suggest some of the stats have been "massaged" to fit their proposed option.

They also did not issue for general release the swept curves for the turning radii for large vehicles. I obtained these and they show a serious problem with vehicles overhanging/swiping other lanes when the swing round. This is dangerous and will also cause delays.

Also, unlike previous studies when the models used the swept radius of an articulated truck, this time they have only used a coach which has a tighter radius.

I could go on and on but..........

[bawdy-nan]

thanks Tomdhu, that's really helpful.

ZT, I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to be rude I just couldn't really understand whether there remained objections to aspects of the proposals or whether it was just a question of "it's all a waste of money".

[slarti b]

@bawdy nan

I would be happy with Option 10A, though I am still not convinced by the traffic modelling rejecting Option 10B. This will improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists and I believe will keep the junction operating efficiently. Interestingly, it is pretty similar to the old Option 4 prepared by independent consultants JMP.

The council have recommended Option 8A which, even on their own figures will cause delays and tailbacks. My guess is this is part of an attempt to move traffic away from the junction ( a RHT ban in disguise) increasing rat running on other local roads.

I cannot leave this to the council to make the decision for me. This process has shown their statements are not to be trusted.

added.. and at this stage I am not going to enter the value for money debate! I want rational decisions based on evidence assessed by competent, independent experts!

[slarti b]

@Cllr Barber

James, you said Whether you think a diagonal crossing is a good or bad idea - that is how the majority of chilren are already using the crossing. This is not correct. Was this part of the Council Office advice?

The JMP report includes detailed analysis of pedestrian numbers on the various crossings and desire lines. The actual number of children using the path of the proposed diagonal crossing is just under 18%, a long way from a "majority".

I think many of the people currently crossing diagonally do so because of the cattle pens and poorly designed existing crossings. If these are removed and crossing distances reduced maybe the diagonal crossing would not be needed.

I am not too concerned about the diagonal crossing itself, but it seems to be used to limit or preclude other options (eg better markings for cyclists across the junction)

[bawdy-nan]

thanks Slartib - really helpful

[fazer71]

I still don't see any benefit in changing the junction other than putting back the two lane exit from Townley rd.

I believe that all road users are fully familiar with the existing layout cars cyclists children etc .

After years of using this junction we are all fine.

My fear is any major changes will result in increased risk to the most vulnerable and is more likely to result in our worst fears!

This all appears to be an experiment at great cost to the tax payer for the benefit of nobody other than the contractor and keeping Southwark staff busy.

If it's not broken don't fix it!

If it needs tweaking then tweak.

Such major surgery with unknown outcome or what appear to be worst outcomes makes absolutely no sense.

Besides this being a license for Conway to print money.

It is a potential killer not a life saver due to users having to adapt to major changes!

[dulwichquine]

Thank you Slarti b for all your posts and good work.

[Charles Notice]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> I still don't see any benefit in changing the

> junction other than putting back the two lane exit

> from Townley rd.

> I believe that all road users are fully familiar

> with the existing layout cars cyclists children

> etc .

> After years of using this junction we are all

> fine.

>

> My fear is any major changes will result in

> increased risk to the most vulnerable and is more

> likely to result in our worst fears!

>

> This all appears to be an experiment at great cost

> to the tax payer for the benefit of nobody other

> than the contractor and keeping Southwark staff

> busy.

>

>

> If it's not broken don't fix it!

>

> If it needs tweaking then tweak.

>

> Such major surgery with unknown outcome or what

> appear to be worst outcomes makes absolutely no

> sense.

>

>

>

>

>

> Besides this being a license for Conway to print

> money.

>

> It is a potential killer not a life saver due to

> users having to adapt to major changes!

Hear hear

[tomdhu]

One thing that emerged from the drop-in session today was that under the proposed consultation, we will lose the ability to wait temporarily (on either side of the road) after 5pm as there will be double yellow lines installed.

Not much fun if you have to collect a child after 5pm who also may have musical instruments, sports gear etc etc

Tom

[Jennys]

After my visit to the parish hall session this morning I am very pleased to see there is a proper cycle path, separate from the footpath for pedestrians. However, I remain concerned that the pedestrian pavement running next to the designated cycle path is neither wide enough in places, nor has it been differentiated properly from the cycle path. People who are blind or who have reduced sight will not realise where the footpath ends and the cycle path begins. I do not think people with disabilities should be put at danger and I am sure cyclists would not wish to knock down someone who has walked onto the cycle path. And as the footpath is fairly narrow, schoolchildren, chatting together as they walk in groups at times of peak use, will almost certainly stray onto the cycle path. Dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.

[James Barber]

Hi Slarti b,

No, that was perception using the junction on foot, bicycle and car.

I was posed the following question which I guess all local councillors are being set:

"Do you think that spending ?220,000 is justified when historic data proves that there is not a safety problem with this junction and that recent modelling commissioned by Southwark shows that there will be increased delays to the traffic?"

My response for transparency:

Yes I think TfL should spend such sums on improving child safety walking and cycling to local schools.

The trouble with solely basing highway safety improvements on reported crashes is significant number of crashes that involve injury are not reported. They're treated by hospitals and that's it. We learn nothing. For slight injuries from memory I've seen peer reviewed papers suggesting only a fifth are actually reported. With random probability waiting until some is killed or seriously injured often would mean fixing a location making safer when its unlikely to have a crash for some considerable time even decades. The research even found under reporting of death on highways.

I don't know the maths but it feels right to review junctions,especially ones with high usage levels such as this one, assessing if it is inherently unsafe and address issues before a death or serious injury. My understanding is that such an assessment has been made hence why TfL are willing to fund changes.

What I would be interested in seeing is the maths related to all junctions having been assessed and prioritised for upgrades so we know that this was the best possible choice in Dulwich for a junction to be improved.

For example Townley Road junction with Lordship Lane and Heber Road has many more crashes and is also a busy route to school and a real barrier to cycling. How does that junction compare and others.

I'm sorry my answer isn't a binary yes or no but I do feel strongly that resources should be allocated but the allocation method needs to be made more transparent.

-----

Looking at the options 8A looks to have the least impact overall. But clearly any of the options will have impact.

The two-stage right turns for cyclists is interesting. I'd welcome knowing how these work in Denmark.

I'm not keen on the cycle gate results in a drastic narrowing of Greendale eastern footpath. It looks like the signal gates are causing the lack of signal time for all the other required manoeuvres. It also makes it look complicated.

The eastbound East Dulwich Grove cycle stop line looks unnecessarily far back from the pedestrian marked crossing area. Even 1/2m would increase capacity going in that direction. It looks like a smaller tweak on the westbound facing traffic on the east side of the junction on East Dulwich Grove. Again tiny improvement in capacity could be squeezed out.

The big open new pavement expanses would need new tree pits or other planting.

I think red light cameras should be included. I think that's one of the biggest issues of this junction - people driving across when just turned red.

Countdown would be useful to aid pedestrians.

But I don't support the do nothing suggestion.

[Jennys]

James I really admire you for working on this at such a late time on a Saturday night!

[hopskip]

Duvaller

I spoke with the Southwark Planner - Christopher Mascourt - at the meeting in the Village yesterday. I am confused by the modelling as it seems to be based upon the volume of traffic able to turn under the current junction configuration. If I heard him correctly, then no account has been made for the longer time it will take for cars or especially coaches to make the turn - for example from Townley going left into ED Grove. It will take longer and so the modelling breaks down unless they also add on additional time - and this could be quite significant for the coaches I feel. In your read of the modelling, has the impact of the pavement build out been factored in?

Duvaller Wrote:

> 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_saf

> ety_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/408

> 0/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation

>

> http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/tomdhu/To

> wnley%20Queues.jpg

[Villager]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Duvaller

> I spoke with the Southwark Planner - Christopher

> Mascourt - at the meeting in the Village

> yesterday. I am confused by the modelling as it

> seems to be based upon the volume of traffic able

> to turn under the current junction configuration.

> If I heard him correctly, then no account has been

> made for the longer time it will take for cars or

> especially coaches to make the turn - for example

> from Townley going left into ED Grove. It will

> take longer and so the modelling breaks down

> unless they also add on additional time - and this

> could be quite significant for the coaches I feel.

> In your read of the modelling, has the impact of

> the pavement build out been factored in?

Hi Hopskip,

Your concerns and assumptions are entirely valid.

The software used by Chris Mascord is called LinSig and is incapable of taking into account the different times vehicles take to make the turn. The modelling is done on PCUs - Passenger Car Units. A car is one unit. A cyclist is 0.2 units and a big coach could be 3.2 units. LinSig isn't sophisticated enough to take into account the different turning characteristics of the different vehicles - let alone a big vehicle that might have to have two takes at making the turn because of the severe buildouts.

It also does not take into account that this junction has many coaches making the turn at peak times.

The turn is so tight that a coach turning left from Townley into EDG swings out at the back so that it's rear end overhangs the lane for the oncoming traffic from Greendale so a side swipe collision is likely.

What Chris Mascord did with LinSig was an expedient rough and ready in-house concoction that compares very poorly with the study done for Southwark by JMP Associates but "Mascord's Mix" arrived at the "result" Southwark wanted.

There's a lot of intrigue behind this issue. Standby for more in due course.

Villager

[@Woodwarde]

Villager,

I was part of a group speaking with Chris M who said that he is not a modeller and that he could not answer detailed questions on it. He had the answers to a few 'anticipated' questions on his mobile that he was able to refer to, but that did not cover the detail that was being asked of him. Chris said that the person who does the modelling is with Aecom and that this same person works for TfL 2 days per week. I understand this is the person that Chris will refer to for queries from the meeting. No name given.

One person speaking with Chris at the same time as me, specifically asked for information on large vehicles, turning circles and (importantly) what was assumed for their turning time. I am not sure how those answers will be provided as it is not clear how the meeting discussion will be reported.

[Villager]

Hopskip,

Chris Mascord was the expert appointed by the Southwark Councillors to answer the public's queries and to justify proposal 8a which is being consulted upon. I was led to believe that he was intimately involved in the modelling process.

The fact that he was unable to answer detailed questions from yourself and other people indicate that the drop-in session was a failure. May I suggest you write about this to Cllr Andy Simmons who is chair of the Dulwich Community Council which must approve this proposal if it is to go any further.

I had a similar experience, as Mr Mascord could not provide me with crucial data also. He could not provide data/info to backup the assumptions, support the modelling analysis or enable an objective appraisal.

It further confirms that this proposal is a hastily prepared lash-up designed for political expediency. It insults our intelligence.

As such it represents a complete failure of the consultation process. Southwark have another fiasco like the one with the No Right Turn. They should wake up, smell the coffee and put 10B up for consideration.

[MarkT]

Villager,

I don't think that Dulwich Community Council must approve this proposal if it is to go any further. If DCC has a view, for or against, it will be taken into account but the decision is for the Cabinet Member.

MarkT

[Bicknell]

So I'm wondering two things after that useless session on Saturday.

1. Is anyone at TfL going to check this new scheme works? Or do they just leave it all up to Southwark?

2. If Southwark gives it the green light based on figures that don't add up, is there anyone higher up who can stop them?

[Penguin68]

I would tend to add (3) when a large coach or articulated lorry swings in and out of the much restricted road space to turn, and crushes thereby a cyclist, which apparatchik or counselor will stand up and admit that it was their mad scheme which has led to death or serious injury at a junction noticeably without either before the changes were made, and will resign? Oh, silly me, none of them will.

[Villager]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Villager,

> I don't think that Dulwich Community Council must

> approve this proposal if it is to go any further.

> If DCC has a view, for or against, it will be

> taken into account but the decision is for the

> Cabinet Member.

> MarkT

MarkT,

That is correct in principle but if the DCC do not support a proposal then it would be highly unlikely that the Cabinet Member would reject/overrule DCC's decision. Mind you, in politics..................

[Tessmo]

@ James Barber

James

Thanks for getting involved in the debate again. But I do want to take issue with a couple of things you said in your last post.

I don?t think anyone would disagree with the idea of spending money on a junction to improve safety.

The trouble with this particular junction at Townley Road is that the danger is perceived rather than statistical. That?s not a reason NOT to improve safety. But it would be entirely wrong to make changes at the Townley Road junction that just pushed the problem elsewhere ? by, for example, increasing congestion at other local junctions, some of which do have statistical records of danger, or decreasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists on residential roads (which will happen if option 8A turns the whole area into one vast traffic jam).

Would you very kindly refer me to the assessment that shows that the Townley Road junction is inherently unsafe? It may well exist, but I haven?t seen it. My understanding was that TfL was willing to fund changes as part of the overall strategy to improve cycling to schools.

Yes, I agree, it would be good to see an overall report about all local junctions, showing the order of priority for upgrades.

You say that option 8A looks to have the least impact overall. Did you mean on traffic flow? You will know from all the debate on this thread recently that several people are very worried about the accuracy of the modelling that?s been done. Would you be able to ask, as our local councillor, for Southwark?s figures to be assessed by independent traffic consultants? The issue of the effect of the huge pavement build-outs on the turning circles of large vehicles like coaches (swinging out into cycle lanes and considerably slowing down traffic) is important, and council officers at Saturday?s drop-in session seemed unable to provide answers.

I think you?ll find that a countdown to aid pedestrians is already in the proposal.

Personally ? and I know some people on this thread would take issue with this ? I agree with you that doing nothing isn?t the best option.

But I also feel very strongly that doing something that may introduce all sorts of new problems and new dangers is completely irresponsible.

Please do let us all know whether you would support the call for an independent assessment of option 8A. I think we?ve all had enough of Southwark officers and AECOM/Conway not being able to answer reasonable and straightforward questions.

[holymoly]

I am more confused following the discussions on Saturday. Nothing was presented and it was all left to individuals to try to have a meaningful discussion with one single planner - who was being bombarded with queries and could not cope.

These changes are clearly experimental and the planner said just that. He described TfL as being 'all over' this junction and said with a wry grin that there was more to come and another 'consultation' about to land on Calton residents. You could have cut the air.

I walked home past the junction this evening and I am struggling to see how the shared cycling and pavement area will work as it runs from Calton to East Dulwich Grove. It is not wide as it is right now - two people could walk together comfortably, or a mother with pram and young child alongside. How on earth this is expected to be a shared cycle and pedestrian way is hard to imagine. Well it's not hard to imagine actually, it's just not possible. Unless perhaps it's one way for pedestrians to make way for cyclists?

This is going to be a huge problem for the morning walk and creates a very difficult situation for Townley and Calton Road who have had the brunt of the coach traffic for many years.

I also listened to a conversation about the coaches and that the new pavements are designed to make turning for them very slow and awkward. The people discussing this said that the turn left from Townley onto East Dulwich Grove was at its tightest limit and that would throw the coaches out across the road and leave them no room for error and was not safe. They also said that there were many coaches taking this route at 4pm (sometimes 7 in a row) and asked how that had been taken into account. The planner said he felt that was all considered but did not know the specifics himself.

I am going to measure the pavements tomorrow. I can't see how the shared space can work. If you walk that way with a buggy - will you post up what you think.