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

[edanna]

James, I think the reason people jump the red light at that junction is because the phasing allows so few cars to exit Townley Rd - I know that doesn't make it right. But I think as others have said a lot of the problems for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists could be solved through careful rephasing of the lights (including a head start for cyclists and a diagonal pedestrian crossing) without making any physical changes. Presumably this would be a lot cheaper.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

[Townleygreen]

I 100% agree with what edanna has said.

Just try rephasing the lights...BUT also add a red light camera!

[rch]

The phasing of the lights have been tweaked as much as possible within the parameters.

The problem is that the staggered crossings on the pedestrian islands adds too much time to the pedestrian crossing phase, which is also why pedestrians dangerously circumvent the islands and run in front of traffic.

The only way to speed up the timing is to reduce the pedestrian crossing times by removing the ped islands and bringing the four junction corners closer together. This means that the traffic lights will need to be moved, which is what makes the reconfiguration so expensive, as the electrics need to be dug up.

Bear in mind that this is also a TfL bus route, so buses will need to meet strict timing requirements before TfL will give permission for the redesign, so the EDG arm will take priority on the traffic light timings.

When we wanted to do the junction reconfiguration back in 2008 (without the banned right turn), the cost was ?60,000... so you can see how much costs and other parameters have risen by faffing.

[BrandNewGuy]

rch Wrote:

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

> When we wanted to do the junction reconfiguration

> back in 2008 (without the banned right turn), the

> cost was ?60,000... so you can see how much costs

> and other parameters have risen by faffing.

So as far ar you're concerned, the roads and pavements could be reconfigured to include the current right turn?

[rch]

A few years ago I think we could have salvaged the right hand turn, but I suspect that legislation and policies have changed too much in the interim, so much is being tightened up.

In order to find a way around this, I'd have to get the engineers to sit down with me and step through all the timings and turning ratios, etc, but I'm not a cllr anymore. But there might not be a way now anyway... looking at the diagram it looks to me that the traffic line is set very far back from the corner on Townley, which will add an extra second or two onto the turning time, but cycles are given priority over cars along there.

It sounds like the engineer is coming to the DCC in January, so I think we should all attend and ask him to run through the parameters in public.

[wulfhound]

Just to put James Barber's figures in perspective:

For the period 2000-2010, at that junction or immediately next to it there were around 20 "slight injury" collisions serious enough to have been reported (via STATS19), with one motorcyclist seriously injured. Financial cost to society? Nearly ?0.5m.

(source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/nov/18/road-casualty-uk-map )

Suppose this redesign lasts 25-50 years as stated above, it doesn't have to reduce casualties much to pay for itself on that one measure alone - over 50 years the current layout is likely to cause ?2.5m+ in economic damage from collisions.

If a better design increases walking/cycling and decreases car use even slightly, the economic benefits are likely to be much bigger again.

[Jennys]

It would be wonderful if a better design increases walking and cycling but what if it just makes all the traffic use other routes instead - just pushing the problem onto other roads making them more dangerous for everyone?

[BrandNewGuy]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> Just to put James Barber's figures in

> perspective:

>

> For the period 2000-2010, at that junction or

> immediately next to it there were around 20

> "slight injury" collisions serious enough to have

> been reported (via STATS19), with one motorcyclist

> seriously injured. Financial cost to society?

> Nearly ?0.5m.

>

> (source:

> http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interacti

> ve/2011/nov/18/road-casualty-uk-map )

>

> Suppose this redesign lasts 25-50 years as stated

> above, it doesn't have to reduce casualties much

> to pay for itself on that one measure alone - over

> 50 years the current layout is likely to cause

> ?2.5m+ in economic damage from collisions.

>

> If a better design increases walking/cycling and

> decreases car use even slightly, the economic

> benefits are likely to be much bigger again.

But by the same argument, one serious and one slight injury over 50 years would also make a ?200,000 junction alteration 'economic'. I wonder how many junctions in London that would cover. Most of them?

[Andrew1011]

Jennys Wrote:

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

> It would be wonderful if a better design increases

> walking and cycling but what if it just makes all

> the traffic use other routes instead - just

> pushing the problem onto other roads making them

> more dangerous for everyone?

Well said.

While in favour in general, I'm very much against the part of the proposal which is to ban right turning from Townley Road. I suggest people lobby their councillors in the wards of East Dulwich, College and Village, who are the people who will be making the decision on this at Dulwich Community Council. Their contact details are available on www.southwark.gov.uk.

I will be doing that and urging the councillors on DCC to consider changing the light phasing and the installation of a filter light in favour of traffic going straight ahead and turning right from Greendale. Whatever view of TfL on this particular junction, even if they have an up to date one, there are examples of such traffic light arrangements in the local area on far busier bus routes than this.

[wulfhound]

@BrandNewGuy redesigns can't prevent everything, *some* collisions result from a level of idiocy by one of the involved parties that no design can prevent. In this particular example though, by the 50-year measurement, it'd only need to be a 10% reduction to break even, which to me sounds plausible. If this design drastically reduces crashes resulting from hook-hazards to cyclists, and those resulting from "bad" crossing patterns by pedestrians, it'd easily do that.

The really bad junctions of course cost a lot more than ?200k to fix though. The re-dos they're planning at Elephant & Castle, Old Street etc. probably run to the tens of millions.

[keyhole]

Surely the cyclists could cross at the pedestrian lights,,,yes walk across the road,,,,there has already been recent adjustments and it seems much better,,,I use this route every day,used to drive,now I cycle,,it's quicker,but I do go slow and if pavement is free,I'm on it....I'm a vigilant driver and cyclist,never crashed into anyone...It's the people in control of vehicle,car,bike,,,,like dog walkers,,,some of us pick up the poo,some don't..Give and take,,,,and common sense,helps too,,,Use the Green Cross Code!!push bike across the small road!!!

[Zebedee Tring]

When I was growing up, cyclists always pushed their bikes at a pedestrian crossing, they never rode across it. When did this change? It would be a good thing if the old practice returned.

[MarkT]

Andrew 1011 wrote:

"I suggest people lobby their councillors in the wards of East Dulwich, College and Village, who are the people who will be making the decision on this at Dulwich Community Council."

Is that correct? Is it Community Council who will be making the Decision?

MarkT

[Andrew1011]

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

Posted by James Barber November 18, 08:18PM

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.'

See Cllr James Barber's post above, which I've reproduced from earlier in the thread. I can't see any reason why the decision wouldn't be one for DCC to take, especially as decisions on similar schemes, e.g. Paxton Green roundabout and recent other changes to the East Dulwich Grove layout, have been taken there.

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

No, local councillors wont directly be making the decision on this junction. But it would be very surprising if the cabinet councillor for transport went againt a community council making recommendations. So de facto we as local councillors are most likely to be taking the decision.

great example of this was the proposed controlled parking around East dulwich station. The decision wasn;t for the Dulwich Community Council to take but I requested we were fully consulted at the DCC. The DCC recommended it not proceed. And despite the cabinet councillor having put forward the scheme they rejected it based on the two community councuils recommendations.

[Gabe]

I'm also strongly in favour of removing the right turn. This junction *feels* dangerous on a bike and is at a critical part of the local cycle network.

Greendale is a good and well-used cycle lane that disgorges riders out into a mess of a junction; this is especially a problem for kids riding to and from the many local schools in the area. Cars misjudge the right turn, and cut across cyclists, very frequently. It's only matter of time before there's a tragic accident.

Moreover, a lot of the traffic along Calton Avenue is rat running. It backs-up all the way to Dulwich Village, which itself is virtual gridlock at least twice a day.

[DadOf4]

I cycle, walk and drive on that junction nearly every day (live just opposite)

IMO there is a safety issue with cyclists coming from Greendale towards Townley - in that I have seen near misses with cars turning right cutting across them (in fact, its a sad admission for a cyclist to make - but I have been guilty of not seeing an oncoming cyclist there when turning right and nearly hitting them).

The problem is that as there is usually no traffic coming from Greendale it "feels" like a t-juntion

I'm also, personally, all up for radical measures (maybe to the detriment of cars) to increase cycling in London

BUT

banning the right turn is an absolute nightmare. IMO the junction of EDG and Village/Redpost hill is even more dangerous than this one already - and thats about to get much worse if everybody coming from village to ED has to come that way.

Add to that the inevtabable number of U-turns and illegal RH turns that will be made - this is just badly thought through

Just Re-phase the lights, put in a couple of signs reminding right-turning drivers that oncoming cyclists take priority, maybe even paint the cycle route across the junction. That would be (a) safer all round (b) cheaper

[Townleygreen]

Dadof4 said "Just Re-phase the lights, put in a couple of signs reminding right-turning drivers that oncoming cyclists take priority, maybe even paint the cycle route across the junction. That would be (a) safer all round (b) cheaper"

Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping to prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint doesn't do very much either.

A main contributory factor is the very short time the lights are green from Townley into the junction. Some motorists just desperately zoom through to beat the red (or even go through 30 seconds after it has been red). That is their priority, not cyclists - in general.

That's why I would try a rephasing to allow a few more out BUT coupled with red light cameras to discourage any idiots.

[BrandNewGuy]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Dadof4 said "Just Re-phase the lights, put in a

> couple of signs reminding right-turning drivers

> that oncoming cyclists take priority, maybe even

> paint the cycle route across the junction. That

> would be (a) safer all round (b) cheaper"

>

> Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping to

> prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint

> doesn't do very much either.

Really, there's no need to exaggerate. No cyclists have been 'run over' here. I'm keen to hear all arguments about this tricky junction, but hyperbole is unhelpful.

[Townleygreen]

It isn't hyperbole! Several people here have mentioned "near misses" with cyclists. None of want to see anything worse, do we?

[BrandNewGuy]

Yeah, of course we do [sarcasm emoticon] Near misses are not 'drivers running over cyclists', which is not happening now, so doesn't need to be prevented. As I said, hyperbole.

[tiddles]

I think Dadof4 makes some good points - esp about painting the cycle route across the junction. introduce a filter light for the RHT that allows cyclists to clear the junction first.

[James Barber]

Near misses shouldnt be ignored. Classic H&S pyramid.

Lots of near misses, a number of slight injuries, a few serious injuries and the thankfully occassional death.

If you can reduce the near misses then you reduce the occurences of more serioues events.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Near misses shouldnt be ignored. Classic H&S

> pyramid.

> Lots of near misses, a number of slight injuries,

> a few serious injuries and the thankfully

> occassional death.

> If you can reduce the near misses then you reduce

> the occurences of more serioues events.

Nobody's ignoring near misses. I just don't want to see them craftily morphed into 'cyclists being run over'.

[DadOf4]

Townleygreen Wrote:

> Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping to

> prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint

> doesn't do very much either.

I. personally find all those lines and signs on our roads do a pretty good job of preventing people running over cyclists.

I find them very useful when I cycle along, say, East Dulwich Grove that the dotted lines and give way signs at the top of the side roads makes drivers wait for me.

Those coloured lights are useful too