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

[Georgina007]

Option 8A is being favoured for some reason - that's much is true. Traffic phases are more favourable for 8A than for 10A - they should be the same in order to compare them like for like.

two lanes are needed on TR as the traffic is nearly 50/50 split (I'd say) - a right hand lane on EDG westbound (and for traffic turning right into GD) is not in my opinion. without seeing traffic flows my educated guess is that very few vehicles are turning into the dead end street (maybe 5-6 an hour) - this should not obstruct straight ahead traffic including buses!

putting pressure on Council to compare these two options like for like - with the same signal phases is the way forward (signals phases used for 8A should be applied to 10A and vice versa). If 8A is safe for all road users, then 10A (with the same phases as 8A) would also be safe and would ultimately perform better-much better.

[mockingbird]

Georgina007 Wrote:

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

> - a right hand lane

> on EDG westbound (and for traffic turning right

> into GD) is not in my opinion. without seeing

> traffic flows my educated guess is that very few

> vehicles are turning into the dead end street

> (maybe 5-6 an hour) - this should not obstruct

> straight ahead traffic including buses!

Residents of the Dutch Estate who turn into Green Dale to Delft Way, where they live and where their parking is, may think differently. They were very vocal about this at the public meeting during the first round of consultation.

But yes, the full LinSig signal modelling needs to be out in the open. It was provided during the first consultation but not this time round. I wonder why. 10A with softer build outs or perhaps 10B, offer the best all round benefits for all users of the junction.

Did anyone get any output from the Southwark drop in meeting on the 28th Feb, out of interest? Or was it just a way to push on through and pretend queries have been addressed?

[@Woodwarde]

rch

- sent PM to you

[Bicknell]

Just got this through my door. DEADLINE THIS FRIDAY

New design for Townley Road Junction

DEADLINE FOR YOUR RESPONSE TO SOUTHWARK IS FRIDAY 13 MARCH

We OBJECT to the latest proposal for the junction because

:

1. Reducing Townley Road to a single lane will cause traffic chaos

2. The design is experimental. If it causes gridlock, who will pay to put it right?

3. The pavement build-out on the corner of Townley Road is so sharp it forces coaches to swing out into the path of pedestrians and cyclists

4. There are no road markings to show that vehicles turning right from Townley Road are crossing a cycle path

5. Removing the traffic island from East Dulwich Grove makes the junction less safe for pedestrians

? This latest proposal is being rushed through without proper thought

? The figures in the feasibility study are surprising and should be checked

? Southwark is not listening to the concerns of the local community

The money for this junction comes from TfL. Southwark is rushing it through because they don?t want to lose the funding, and work has to be done in the summer holidays. Out of the options presented, we think option 10, with two lanes on Townley Road, is the best ? particularly 10B, with two lanes on East Dulwich Grove, so the 37 won?t be delayed by cars turning right into Green Dale

PLEASE GIVE YOUR SUPPORT FOR OPTION 10, AS LONG AS THE SHARP PAVEMENT BUILD-OUT (TURNING LEFT FROM TOWNLEY ROAD) IS REDUCED

To reply to the consultation, fill in the paper form, or the online feedback form: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation

To hear Southwark?s report on the consultation, come to the Dulwich Community Council on Tuesday 17 March, at 7pm, at The Community Suite, St Barnabas Church, 40 Calton Avenue, SE21 7DG

[Green Goose]

Irrespective of all the leafletting and protests expressed on this thread, I reckon it's all whistling in the wind because of he Labour majority on both the DCC and the Council overall.

That said, if 8a goes through, there will be a comeuppance when it comes to the next local elections.

Andy especially take note!

[wulfhound]

1. Reducing Townley Road to a single lane will cause traffic chaos

I'm confused - surely it's effectively a single lane now? If anything larger than a hatchback is turning right, a left turning vehicle can't fit alongside (on the road itself) without blocking the (painted) cycle lane. Usually you get a sort of zig zag arrangement, people position according to which way they're turning but you rarely get two vehicles side by side. At least at the times of day I'm there.

Once you get to the middle of the junction itself, right turning traffic pulls over & lefts can filter past, but Townley proper is single lane and marked as such.

[slarti b]

@Wulfhound

"Once you get to the middle of the junction itself, right turning traffic pulls over & lefts can filter past, but Townley proper is single lane and marked as such"

That is the point. Effectively the single lane on Townley becomes 2 lanes, there is space for cars turning right into EDG to wait in the junction without obstructing the traffic turning Left into EDG. Consequently traffic flows pretty freely.

Under Option 8A this will not happen. The huge built out pavements reduce the amount of waiting space within the junction so cars turning right into EDG are likely to block cars waiting to turn left. There may be further delays caused by coaches or large vehicles turning left from Townley to EDG due to the tight turning circle.

I also think it will encourage cars turning right into EDG to rush the turn, therefore increasing the danger for Southbound Greendale cyclists, the original reason given for the RHT ban in the discredited Option 7!

Options 10A\10B maintains 2 lanes on Townley and gives cars a much better indication that they are turning right at a proper junction with vehicles coming in the opposite direction, improving safety for Greendale cyclists.

[Tessmo]

@wolfhound

I can see what you're saying about Townley Road being one lane at the moment.

But it's all to do with the planned pavement build-out. At the moment, right-turning traffic only has to move out a little way for all left-turning traffic to be able to get past. It's not marked as two lanes, but cars can turn right or turn left without blocking each other. (Like you, I know this junction well, and I've been watching what the cars do for some weeks now.)

If 8A goes ahead - with the much narrower road width to accommodate the cycle lane, the waiting bay for nervous cyclists, and the huge pavement build-out - there is no possibility for a left-turning car to get into position until the right-turning car is way out in the middle of the junction. If two right-turning cars both leave Townley Road nose-to-tail, it's likely that a left-turning car will just have to wait until the next phase of lights before it can move. Given that there are already tailbacks all the way down Townley Road and Calton Avenue in the morning with the current layout, it's hard to see how 8A will do anything other than increase congestion.

If you look at 10A or 10B (http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4080/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation) - which might, if the LinSig data is correctly optimised, prove the better option for traffic flow anyway - you will see a layout giving Townley Road two distinct lanes. What you lose are the bays for nervous cyclists. Personally, I feel that if the junction doesn't work reasonably efficiently, and actually causes tailbacks and congestion, no one benefits.

Finally, of course, there's the issue of coaches. One long vehicle trying to negotiate that very sharp turn is going to slow everything down even further... But that's a different point to the one you're making.

[Gabe]

This thread is very disappointing. Bar a few exceptions, the tone of the discussion is one of self-interested sharp-elbowed local residents hectoring more or less any proposal to improve a horrible junction that needs to be fixed. This will inevitably impact some car drivers, but that would be well worth it.

And that should just be the start. The problems extend well beyond the junction. Calton Avenue is basically a rat-run along a marked cycle route that, currently, is in no way suitable for teenagers and less confident cyclists. Coaches, buses, and lorries should be restricted from using this road. And then attention should turn to rationalising the junction in Dulwich Village, which is equally bad.

[BrandNewGuy]

I don't think anyone on this thread has been selfish. Mostly, they've looked carefully at the options given and decided what might be best not only for the junction but for the streets around. And if you've read the detail, you'd know that the council seem only to be interested in a solution that guarantees them the ?200K+ cycling cash. Which means that they are the ones who aren't interested in "more or less any proposal".

And when you say it's a 'horrible' junction, you mean it's one with little or no accident history compared to others in the area.

And are you happy for coaches, buses and lorries to use Townley Road? Or is it just Calton Avenue? I suspect the sharp elbows of a local resident...

[Gabe]

This is a prime example: "the council seem only to be interested in a solution that guarantees them the ?200K+ cycling cash". Right. I'm sure that's the case. Absolutely.

To your point, no, there's no reason at all why large vehicles should using Townley Road, and especially, they should not be accessing it via Calton Avenue.

One of the sensible objections (as far as I'm able to follow this) is that building out the pavements will mean coaches swinging on wide arc to make the turn. This is obviously dangerous. Restricting how these vehicles can travel through the area would be for the common good. Road design can help with that. And the nearby schools have to take more responsibility for their coaches and buses.

[BrandNewGuy]

Gabe Wrote:

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

> This is a prime example: "the council seem only to

> be interested in a solution that guarantees them

> the ?200K+ cycling cash". Right. I'm sure that's

> the case. Absolutely.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that the ?200K+ comes out of TFL's (underspent) fund to promote cycling. Further, Southwark themselves say, "Time is absolutely critical now for the proposed changes to Townley Road Junction. This is our very last chance. Any work must be carried out this summer, as funding will expire in the next financial year."

So yes, without the cycling money, it wouldn't be happening.

[slarti b]

@Gabe

"This is a prime example: "the council seem only to be interested in a solution that guarantees them the ?200K+ cycling cash". Right. I'm sure that's the case. Absolutely. "

Absolutely indeed.

- The Mouchel report from 2007 recommended safety improvements costing under ?20k... not actioned by Council

- The JMP report in Dec 2012 recommended a short term "Quick Win" solution to improve safety costing ?8k...not actioned by Council

But, TFL says it will hand over ?285K to support the "Cycling to school Partnership" and the council is suddenly interested!

[Derwent Groover]

Spot on slarti b,

But one must not overlook the political capital that the Labour-dominated Council are hoping to claim by prising ?285,000 out of Boris's TFL budget.

They could brag about it all the way until the next local elections! They don't give a damn about the junction and the pollution the tailbacks will cause.

Mark Williams and his mates even tried to put a positive spin on the announcement that the previous (NRT) proposal was being dropped -despite their best efforts to force it through. How's that for political chutzpah!

[Tessmo]

@Gabe

The discussion on this thread is focused on the junction because it was the initial re-design of the junction, including the banned right turn, that started everything off.

I think most people are so concerned about changes to the junction because, like you, they care about the knock-on effect on other roads and other junctions. The point has always been that the Townley Road junction doesn't work in isolation - the changes you make here affect the whole of the surrounding area.

There's now a new design for the junction out for consultation. Personally I feel the Council has chosen the wrong option, and that either 10A or 10B, with the huge pavement build-out softened so that coaches can turn easily and without swinging out across pavement and cyclist paths, are far better than 8A. With respect, I don't think that means "hectoring more or less any proposal". I think it means trying to choose the proposal that gives maximum safety for pedestrians and cyclists, but also allows the junction to operate efficiently.

Southwark Council doesn't seem to like having a pre-planning stage, where various options are openly discussed with the local community. In both the first and second consultations, the only thing you can do is say yes or no to what's put forward. We're trying to be constructive. The first time we said, not option 7 (with the banned right turn) but option 5. And now we're saying, not option 8A (which we think will make congestion worse), but option 10A or 10B.

I completely agree that we need to look at how traffic works in the area as a whole. Like you, I think the junction of Calton Avenue and Court Lane is hazardous - and accident statistics support this.

The Dulwich Society has called an open meeting this Saturday 14 March to discuss traffic in Dulwich - come along and have your say.

[Derwent Groover]

This seems to be nothing but a cynical promotion exercise for Option 8A, SRS and anything to do with cycling.

So at last the Dulwich Society is showing its true stance on the Townley Rd issue - having previously said they did not take a stance on any consultation issues.

Most of us will be aware that Alistair Hanton chairs the Transport Sub-Committee at the Dulwich Society. Hanton is a dedicated advocate for cycling and actually represents Southwark Cyclists on the Cycling Joint Steering Group at Southwark Council. Hardly and unbiased participant then.

For many of us, Hanton lost all credibility with his behind-the-scenes support for the farcical Option 7 ? the No Right Turn design.

Groover

[fazer71]

You do all know this junction would work perfectly as a mini roundabout with zebra crossings on each road ...

But that's toooooo simple for tfl Southwark and the suppliers of traffic systems.

Hehehe.

[richard tudor]

Most of us old local residents know if the save the planet tribe withdrew their heads from their anus they could see there is no need for anything to be done.

This junction has worked for years although new imports are scared of heir own shadows, hence we must change something

Grow up and use common sense.

[Derwent Groover]

It's not too many years ago since there wasn't even traffic lights at this junction.

It is a simple suburban junction with an excellent safety record.

Groover

[hopskip]

i am for one of the Options 10.

And Dulwich Safe Routes, Southwark Cyclists, Southwark Living Streets and the Transport Committee of the Dulwich Society (yes conflicted) - who were all advocates of 7 and now 8A, can step up to the plate. Let's see them demand that the schools have a transport plan to deliver the massive expected increase in cycling. That's what they have been forecasting....

Let's see them advocate less pollution and sufficient junction capacity to keep the residential streets safe.

And don't forget - we have funded the bike-it officer to the tune of ?65k even if nothing else happens.

[christgill]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> You do all know this junction would work perfectly

> as a mini roundabout with zebra crossings on each

> road ...

> But that's toooooo simple for tfl Southwark and

> the suppliers of traffic systems.

>

> Hehehe.

A problem with this is that, at certain times of the day, there can be an almost constant stream of pedestrians crossing which causes tailbacks on the roads leading to the roundabout and can cause gridlock on the roundabout itself.

[@Woodwarde]

As posted somewhere above on this thread, TfL have been more willing to supply information under FOI than Southwark. TfL at least could show the funding bid analysis and correspondence. Oh dear, Southwark not very good on its record keeping.

Southwark say:

Re: Internal review: FOI 473764

Thank you for your email dated 17 February 2015 in which you requested:

1) I have of course got the documents that were up on the website. Also my FOI request went in in November last year and I am more interested in the correspondence that has taken place since Nov 2012 and specific to Townley/Green Dale and anything with Green Dale and Quietways, and as described in my points 1 and 2.

2) I have the Southwark Council submission to Tfl that won the bid but there must be some internal correspondence around that confirming the win and the conditions attached to it and verification of any aspects of the bid and that has not been provided.

3) The Cycling strategy correspondence that you have sent is a limited set and specifically on the interactive map and from Dec 2014. There will of course be further earlier general correspondence about the routes selected and why and again I am interested in Green Dale and Townley.

What is the reason why this is still being withheld?

______

I apologise for the delay in providing you with a response.

Under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('the Act') the council is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates that the cost of complying with the same would exceed the 'appropriate limit' prescribed in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

For local government the 'appropriate limit' is set at ?450 and calculated on a standard rate of ?25 per hour based on estimating how long it takes one person in:

(a) determining whether the authority holds the information,

(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information,

© retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and

(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.

The information which you have requested for points 1, 2 and 3 above is not available in a readily accessible form and it will take more than 18 hours to locate, retrieve and extract the same. To obtain the answer to points 1, 2 and 3 would involve determining, locating, retrieving and extracting relevant correspondence held in electronic format and hard copy archives going back to November 2012 (i.e. an estimated total of 1,000 items). As the council estimates that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the ?appropriate limit? it is therefore not obliged to answer the same.

We estimate the cost of providing you with the information to answer points 1, 2 and 3 to be ?1,250 i.e. the total number of hours taken to obtain the information requested (50) multiplied by the standard rate of ?25 per hour based on estimating how long it takes one person to determine, locate, retrieve, and extract the information. The total number of hours taken to obtain the information requested (50) is calculated, firstly, by multiplying the estimated total number of correspondence items (1,000) by the time we estimate it would take one person to determine, locate, retrieve and extract each relevant correspondence item (i.e. 3 minutes). The result is then divided into 60 to give the total number of hours.

If you are not content with the outcome of your appeal, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have first exhausted our internal appeal procedure and you should contact him within 2 months of the outcome of your internal appeal.

Further information is available through the Information Commissioner at the:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire. SK9 5AF

[macutd]

Let's go back to No Traffic lights. As it was for many years without a problem.

It seems like it is a job creation scheme.

Stop trying to think of new ways to spend our money and either reduce our council tax bills or repair the road surfaces which are disgraceful!!

[Villager]

Outside school holidays, this junction, and all surrounding roads, are very quiet - even during the rush hours, so being a technophile, I reckon that technology has the answer.

We already have average speed cameras that identify cars with ANPR, so if there was a system that clocked cars crossing the EDG/Townley junction in two directions within 60 minutes, then a charge could be levied so that the yummy mummies with Chelsea tractors could be charged a premium for dropping their kids off every day.

Then they could use Dulwich park or somewhere else to drop them off and give them an opportunity to walk a couple of hundred yards to school and get some exercise.

[Duvaller]

If the Labour Councillors force this through then don't forget you can get payback...

http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/ballot_zpsqwhebcuh.jpg