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

[BrandNewGuy]

I didn't say there wasn't *any* danger to cyclists. I was pointing out that the statistics show that there isn't a significant safety issue at that junction. So making it 'safer' is a never-ending argument for never-ending expenditures with rapidly diminishing returns and huge repercussions with regard to congestion, journey times and increased use of rat runs. As a a matter of interest, I'd like to know how much these changes will cost ? and why they weren't carried out the last time the junction was expensively re-engineered just a few years ago.

And given the large number of schools in the immediate vicinity, there's no way you can re-engineer the junction to make crossing patrols redundant. They are part of the safety of the junction and always have been.

[Penguin68]

It's a shame there's no room for a footbridge - the amortised savings on specialist crossing help would probably pay for it in a decade or so. Then lights and road lay-out would only be an issue for wheeled vehicles.

[DaveR]

"It's a shame there's no room for a footbridge"

FFS, it's not the M4. Do you really want to live in a neighbourhood where the assumption is that people walking can't cross roads safely?

[Penguin68]

I had rather thought that was a significant trigger for redoing the road layout. Safety.

[tomdhu]

Several of us have been wondering just how much this proposal would cost, if implemented fully. I now know the official figure.

So, this is a good opportunity to give each person, who has contributed to this topic, the opportunity to guess the amount and to keep it totally fair, I would ask that the estimates be sent to me by PM. I repeat, by PM only.

Others might just want to make a bid also just to see how much these "improvements" cost us all -the tax payers.

No Council employees may enter.

The prize is a bottle of wine and it will go to the nearest bidder. There is only one prize and to avoid any possible duplicates, your bid should be in pounds AND MUST also have PENCE. There should be no zeros in the last 3 digits of the pounds in your bid.

I will keep the competition open for say 48 hours and then I will post the actual amount and the name of the winner.

Good luck

Tom

[Sqiggles]

This junction is not safe for pedestrians, but that could be fixed simply by changing the phasing of the traffic lights. The problem, if crossing east dulwich grove from townley road to greendale, is that the two sides of the road are phased separately. This means that the school children have to wait in the cnetral reservation, which is not big enough for the number of children in the morning. They are also tempted to rush across the second side, not waiting for the green man. The lollypop man does the best that he can but there are so many children in the island that he cannot get from one side to the other.

The best solution would be a complete pause on the lights to enable all the roads to be crossed at the same time, including diagonally. As someone else said, this would also allow nervous cyclists to dismount and corss the function at the same time.

I agree that no right turn from Towneley Road sounds a disaster!

[BrandNewGuy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I had rather thought that was a significant

> trigger for redoing the road layout. Safety.

We could do all sorts of things to improve safety, such as banning all cars... But we don't do that, we prioritise spending ? and there is scant evidence that this junction is particularly unsafe.

[James Barber]

Council officials have told me they anticipate these proposals will be presented at the 28 January Dulwich Community Council. This is a public meeting where local councillors and residents can ask questions and make comments.

When I know the location I'll tell people.

[rch]

FYI, I have a copy of the 2007 Site Safety Report for this junction sitting on my desk as I type this. According to the report, this junction was totally 'refurbished' in 2004 by TfL, not Southwark Council. However, in the implementation of this new signalled junction scheme a series of quite serious errors were made by TfL contractors, which have led to the problems that the council has gotten regular complaints about over the past decade. The biggest problems are to do with the "sheep pen" pedestrian islands.

I got regular complaints about this junction from the time I got elected as cllr in 2006, right up until the last week running up to the May 2014 election... and I am personally aware of the problems at this junction from a pedestrian perspective because I don't own a car and therefore walk along there frequently because the 37 bus service is so bad.

To be fair, our highway engineers have been really responsive on this issue over the years.

After this safety report was done, a draft junction redesign was made with a promise from TfL for funding due to the proven errors in the implementation of the current junction... this redesign was supposed to be part of a 5-junction redesign program in Dulwich Village in an attempt to get traffic moving elegantly through the whole Village. But despite a very successful consultation process, the main Village junction and this Townley/EDG junction were dropped from the program due to what I would describe as political manoeuvres (don't even ask, I hate politics!), thereby creating knock-on problems incorporated into the junction redesigns which were implemented (which are still being re-tweaked).

Several short term solutions for the Townley/EDG junct were proposed but school safety officers opposed them in the interest of the safety of the high level of school children using the crossings, leaving no other option but going back to the drawing board for a complete redesign.

Therefore, the problems with the Townley/EDG junction resurfaced in 2010 during the major campaign to retain the Lollipop crossing guards in the Village... we specifically cited the safety issues in the 2007 audit in an attempt to convince the administration not to cancel the two lollipops at this junction.

In response to the Lollipops for Life campaign, the administration agreed to devolve funding down to the DCC to retain the lollipop crossing guards while reviewing the junction with a view to obtaining funding from TfL to address the 2004 implementation glitches.

So, this scheme that is being consulted on is a result of 10 years of community protest caused by something that wasn't done properly in the first instance.

[BrandNewGuy]

So as far as you know, who's paying for it?

[rch]

Bear in mind that I haven't been involved for the last 6 months, but I believe that funding is being devolved from TfL. This is a bus route, after all, so any redesigns will be subject to TfL's approval anyway.

Maybe James can confirm?

[wulfhound]

I'm very strongly in favour of banning the right turn - as well as reducing conflict for south/east-bound cyclists (near misses there are very common, right turning drivers either underestimate the speed of cyclists, fail to see them, mistakenly think they have right of way or just don't care), it will also greatly reduce the amount of rat run traffic on Calton Ave.

The best thing LBS can do for cycle safety & to get more people on their bikes is create a stronger distinction between "residential" roads (little or no through traffic, low speeds, no dedicated facilities for bikes) and "main" roads (high volume of traffic, 20mph or higher speed limit, and either dedicated cycle facilities OR an alternative route using the quiet streets running parallel). I'm all for anything that removes through traffic from residential roads - for those who are able bodied and don't need to carry a vanload of gear, there are almost always alternatives to driving.

I'm guessing the total budget for this work is somewhere in the ?150k ball park. Even as someone who cares about cycle safety, I hope it's not too much more than that - there are bigger barriers to deal with than this one junction.

[BrandNewGuy]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> I'm very strongly in favour of banning the right

> turn - ... it will also greatly reduce the

> amount of rat run traffic on Calton Ave.

Why is Calton Avenue any more of a rat run than, say, Townley Road? Just looking on the map and less than a fifth of its length has houses on both sides of the road. And it has speed bumps. What you're proposing is that all ED-bound traffic from Woodwarde Road and Court Lane (never mind Dulwich Village and Turney Road) gets pushed through Dulwich Village onto an already busy right turn into ED Grove.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Something I've often noticed in the village is that during half-term and school holidays there is barely a rush hour. You can't do much about the coaches from further away, but if more local parents would make the effort to walk their children to/from JAGS and Alleyns (seems to be less of an issue with the Charter School), that might help to alleviate some of the pressure on this junction.

[Zebedee Tring]

I agree, RPC, but unfortunately lots of local parents won't allow their little darlings to walk a couple of hundred yards to school because of the risk of numerous perverts grabbing them and taking them away. In reality there was always that kind of risk - I'm retired now but was at school at the time of the Moors Murderers and somehow we survived walking to school at the edge of Epping Forest where no doubt Ron and Reggie were burying many of their victims.

Blame the modern meeja for blowing the problem out of proportion.

[wulfhound]

BrandNewGuy I'd suggest that ED-bound local traffic from Court Lane and Woodwarde Road should go due east to Lordship Lane (i.e. the LL & Court Lane or Eynella Road junctions). If it's a journey far enough to be worth driving (i.e. well beyond ED itself), the detour involved is pretty minor. Another option would be Dovercourt, right on to Townley and then left on to LL.

A lot of the traffic on Calton Ave isn't from Court Lane or Woodwarde Road, it's people turning right from DV, left on to Calton and then right at the Townley Road / Green Dale / EDG junction. It's worth asking though whether this turn is sufficient to reduce the volume on Calton or whether people will just turn right on to Townley at the end of it and then left on to LL, instead of left on to Townley, right on to EDG and then on towards LL.

[sandyman]

wulfhound Wrote:

>

> A lot of the traffic on Calton Ave isn't from

> Court Lane or Woodwarde Road, it's people turning

> right from DV, left on to Calton and then right at

> the Townley Road / Green Dale / EDG junction. It's

> worth asking though whether this turn is

> sufficient to reduce the volume on Calton or

> whether people will just turn right on to Townley

> at the end of it and then left on to LL, instead

> of left on to Townley, right on to EDG and then on

> towards LL.

I don't think they would all do that - if they are heading west or into the heart of ED I expect they would go straight through the village and turn right at the lights at the junction with Red Post Hill - thus causing a jam and danger for cyclists there. And if they were heading into town they could go straight up Red Post Hill.

[James Barber]

This scheme, along with Gallery Road new pelican crossing and proposed Paxton Green roundabout changes, are expected to be presented by council officers and discussed in public at the 28 January Dulwich Community Council meeting.

I have asked if a venue with good publci transport links for residents from all three scheme area can be found.

I have suggested the venue and dates being checked. Fingers crossed.

[DaveR]

At the very least the debate above indicates that you probably shouldn't do something that might radically changes traffic flows and volumes (i.e. implement the no right turn) without some actual data on what those flows and volumes are. There's no point in addressing a perceived problem here if you just create anew one somewhere else.

[wulfhound]

@DaveR that's a very good point indeed - although maybe they already have that data?

@James Barber Paxton *again*? Didn't they just spend months and ???? digging that one up? What (and why) is the plan this time around?

[tiddles]

crikey - paxton green has just had a major re-doing? what on earth are they doing now?? this should be interesting

[James Barber]

That what I thogut. But that's what I've been told.

Hi DaveR,

Council officials will have that data and modelled it. But you can ask them all about it 28 Jauary Dulwich Community Council meeting.

[James Barber]

Scheme makes front page of the Dulwich SLP edition.

For transparency for a number of years I was a member of the Dulwich Safer Routes to School Group and chair of Sotuhwark Cyclists. And still a member of London Cycling Campaign/Southwark Cyclsits and Living Streets/Sotuhwark Living Streets.

I think the scheme is good but the Townley Road reduction from two to one lane and banned right turn is wrong.

I also think the Townley Road red light jumping is already a problem and red light cameras required to deter this.

[tomdhu]

The competition to guess the budget cost of the proposed works is now closed.

The winning guess was ?189,654.72 and the actual budget is ?200,000. This was from someone who is familiar with public sector finance.

I guess that will surprise quite a few of us as the average of all the other bids was around ?35,000.

The Council officer who advised the amount, was at pains to stress that only a small amount would be coming from the rate-payer's "money", as the bulk of the funding would be from central govt funds.

My view is that, either way, a massive amount of tax-payer's money is being spent on projects which result in only a fairly marginal improvement in facilities/amenities.

Tom

[James Barber]

Hi tomdhu,

That is a lot of money.

A slight injury in theround costs society ?14,611 (2011 figures), serious injury ?189,519, death ?1.69m.

http://www.makingthelink.net/tools/costs-child-accidents/costs-road-accidents

The life of a well designed junction should be 25-50 years.

So yes a lot of money but potentially cheap if it reduces the chances of catastrophic serious injury or death or even slight injuries over a lnog period of time.

Which is why it is so important that this time we all get the design right.