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

[Zebedee Tring]

Here's an update to the change.org petition re the Townley/EDG junction from earlier this year, quoting the Conway/AECOM letter of 28 August and asking what are the "unforeseen circumstances" and the "technical and legislative complications" leading to the failure to complete the works by Thursday 3 September:

https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-townley-road-junction/u/12957440?tk=zUItJkiyBuHEThiRYswlyIsw58RpCphUcBrIKNxT5go&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

[rch]

The original discussions back in 2007 were based around correcting, at TfL's expense, the errors that TfL's contractors made in implementing the new signal junction a couple years earlier.

This quickly evolved into a proposal to improve the junction by building out the corners and removing the pedestrian islands with a view towards speeding up the time it takes a pedestrian to cross, which in turn would speed up the light phases for cars in a way that would address the traffic tailbacks. Bear in mind that the diagonal crossing evolved around reducing the pedestrian crossing times.

Unfortunately the junction redesign funding got politically sidelined in 2008 and it's taken this long to identify funding to reconstruct the junction by using cycle funding, which is how everything got diverted in that direction.

It will be interesting to see how this emerging redesign without the experimental cycling elements works out, hopefully it will end up being balanced for all users. Bear in mind that, once the works are done and monitored for a year or two, tweaks can be made to the design... although, it may be that residents will have to campaign for CGS funding to implement a requested tweak.

But getting the ped islands removed and the new traffic lights in will be the most expensive part of the works, the rest can be tweaked, possibly even the pointed buildout from Townley onto EDG.

[Jennys]

I see this letter must have been sent to one of the schools (Alleyns and/or Jags I suppose). It would have been nice if Conways or Southwark Council could have had the courtesy to inform local residents as well since all of us living in the area are also inconvenienced.

[Zebedee Tring]

Courtesy to local residents? Aren't you expecting a bit too much? Southwark and Conways think that we are a collection of interfering idiots.

[fazer71]

A major junction by two schools should have taken precedence over other work but almost every time "day time week days" I passed the works there were no workmen in sight.

Crock of ?hit.

[wulfhound]

If you are a cyclist, what do you make of the junction layout now and how you feel using it?

Won't know til the road's reopened. Right now looks like a total mess, from a cycling POV.

The whole point of the design was supposed to be something like.. narrow the carriageways to make things better for pedestrians, and provide a seperate path through the junction for cyclists so they don't get mixed up in the newly narrowed carriageways.

They've done the narrowing, but if (as appears to be the case) they've not built any of the cycling facilities, then the end result is clearly going to be worse than before. At least until they finish the new facilities.

I'll reserve judgement til they've finished this round of works, but it's not looking good. Nice if you're on foot though.

[Scootingover]

Thanks Wulfhound. Not great then. Commuting cyclists compromised by travelling in narrowed lanes midst queuing traffic. Worse than before. Cyclists should avoid it if it is exposing them. Any views on it once open would be helpful.

[wulfhound]

It's no worse than other crap commuter cyclists have to deal with (including another brand new, expensively created pinch point on a future Quietway at Camberwell Grove / Champion Hill), but ?250k of cycling budget ought to buy something more than "no worse than the other crap".

[Scootingover]

Today should be the day Townley re-opens (partially)?

Apart from a hugely increased and severe left hand turn out of Towney to ED Grove, there look to be little by way of cycling benefits and the LHT must be more problematic for cyclists. The cycle path is just drawn on the main highway as before. As large vehicles have to turn left here for access to schools then this is starting to conflict with the new TfL agenda to stop left hand turns for lorries. It hardly looks possible in any case but let's see that for real tomorrow when the coaches are back running.

The diagonal crossing is there of course...........

Also, posting this from an adjacent thread on Loughborough Junction because a ludicrous comparison has been made about the evaporation of traffic at Townley. Just FYI and before the Dulwich Community Council Meeting on the 9th Sept (7pm, the church at ST BARNABAS, Dulwich Village)in case the same statement is made.

Re: No through route at Loughborough Junction

Posted by hopskip Yesterday, 05:58PM

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Plenty of evidence that GENERALLY creating new

> roads generates more traffic. M25 classic example.

> Closing roads leads to traffic evaporation. People

> constantly make decisions about whether they can

> be bothered. Make it easier then they are and vice

> versa.

>

> It sounds like davidk is suggesting trial

> experimental closure - for whatever reasons -

> resulted in traffic evaporation. This doesn't mean

> it isn't a pain in the proverbial for some.

>

> The closure of Townley Road hasn't led to dire

> traffic levels along Lordship Lane/Melbourne Grove

> as far as I'm aware.

>

> People are amazingly smart and adaptable.

Remarkable misuse of facts. But why?

This statement is misleading and should be ignored. As everyone knows and as the consultation showed, term time am and pm are the problem traffic times at Townley due to 4 private schools directly at the junction and the associated car and coach traffic.

Which is precisely why Southwark and all our Cllrs knew the work had to take place over the summer months. And now the works are overrunning then we don't have to take anyone's view. It will be self evident.

No doubt we might see a Cllr on Melbourne Grove counting the traffic. Or perhaps the Cllrs will just evaporate.

[mockingbird]

So. How is the junction on its first day of opening?

[hopskip]

Summary of observations from various residents yesterday:

Only the northbound carriageway of Townley was open yesterday. Work continues on the southbound carriageway. ?Road Closed? signs continue at the south end of Calton Avenue.

The right filter light governing traffic heading East along EDG and waiting to turn into Townley is not working. The result is direct conflict and angry verbal exchanges taking place between traffic turning right into Townley while northbound traffic from Townley has a green light. And of particular concern is the danger to cyclists heading north in this scenario.

Also cars turning right from Townley are cutting straight across cyclists coming straight ahead.

The diagonal desire line appears not to be where it has been installed but the pattern of use seems to be from JAGS junior school to outside Allenys on Townley Road. Children seen crossing on all arms when the green man went red.

There are no markings on the road to show cars where to go.

According to a friendly workman, TfL has said that a cycle lane with barrier would make Townley Road too narrow

for traffic and this is why it has been refused. Nothing back from Southwark to explain the loss of cycling facilities and what the legislative and technical issues were.

The one coach seen in the morning turning left from Townley into East Dulwich Grove had to go into the TR right hand lane in order to get the correct circle to turn left.

This last point we should note as this has been said to the Southwark planners many times. We should not let Southwark's errors and intransigence to be used as a way to bring back the right hand turn ban idea.

[first mate]

"This last point we should note as this has been said to the Southwark planners many times. We should not let Southwark's errors and intransigence to be used as a way to bring back the right hand turn ban idea."

hopskip, that is a very good point. In the agenda driven game of traffic chess, currently played by the Council and our Councillors, I can see their next move will be to state the road is unsafe in terms of coaches and therefore the only viable and cost effective solution is to ban the right hand turn. They and the Councillor/ s supporting this will find a way to blame TFL or some other body for the cockup. Except it is not a cockup, I still believe they have always had one aim and will achieve it, by whatever means.

Could the Council be forced to reverse this work and reinstate the former road design? Perhaps RCH would know?

This meddling and tinkering, supported by our local Councillors- the persons who are meant to represent us, has to stop.

[rch]

I think any major changes will have to be submitted as a highway order and therefore subject to consultation, but we should keep our eye on it just in case. Minor tweaks could be possible without notification.

I had a friend drive me around there yesterday and it seemed to be flowing okay, but I haven't watched the coaches try to navigate it yet. I saw engineers monitoring the traffic, which was reassuring.

I'm buried with the blasted Melbourne Barrier situation at the moment, but will have a better look at the layout over the weekend.

[wulfhound]

"According to a friendly workman, TfL has said that a cycle lane with barrier would make Townley Road too narrow

for traffic and this is why it has been refused."

Well it's too narrow now.. but only after they've gone and made the pavement about 6ft wider. Massive fail.

The one bright spot is that tightening everything up seems to have reduced the right-hook hazard for southbound cyclists (Green Dale on to Townley) considerably - and even more so if/when the cycle traffic lights get the early start we were promised. Much better visibility between northbound and southbound queues.

If there's no cycle lane or barrier, what on earth was the point of digging up the planted area at the top of Calton?

[tomdhu]

Tail-backs all the way back to the traffic lights at Red Post Hill in mornings and evenings now. Much worse than before - as predicted. Result, more pollution from lines of stationary traffic. Not to mention the effect on the 37 bus.

But then that meets Southwark's stated objective of making the roads less attractive to vehicular traffic.

How not to spend ?250,000.

[Duvaller]

I for one, will be complaining to TFL. Complaining to the council is a waste of time as the DCC voted this through unanimously.

TFL made a mess of it previously and have had the privilege of spending ?250,000 to mess it up again.

https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csip/CreateRequestValidateAndSave.do

[@Woodwarde]

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50007706&Opt=0

Here is the link to the report from the Statutory consultation phase. During the statutory consultation period, I am aware that a number of residents continued to query the design as reported earlier on this thread. Southwark planners responded that the design was frozen, although different to the design approved at the June DCC meeting by Councillors.

This TMO (published on the website 1st Sept) includes the following:

16. A fully segregated cycle lane is proposed between Calton Avenue and Townley

Road in order to segregate cyclists from pedestrians and allowing cyclists to

bypass the Calton Avenue / Townley Road junction (providing safe, direct access

to Townley Road where the segregated cycle lane joins a proposed mandatory

cycle lane leading up to the advance cycle waiting area at the junction of East

Dulwich Grove). This segregated cycle lane allows the existing shared use

footway along the western side of Townley Road to be changed for pedestrian use

only, thereby removing potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at this

location.

17. The mandatory cycle lanes on Townley Road and Green Dale are to ensure

cyclists have unobstructed access to the proposed signalised cycle gates.

Currently in peak traffic flow periods, motorists indiscriminately form two informal

lanes of traffic (especially on Townley Road), which obstructs access to the

junction for cyclists that have to either use the footway to access the existing ASL

or weave between waiting vehicles. Installing the mandatory cycle lanes will

rationalise the lane discipline for general traffic, as well as providing a minimum

carriageway width of 1.5m adjacent to the kerb to provide unobstructed access to

the junction.

18. The proposed upgrade in kerbside parking restrictions is to remove the potential

for indiscriminate parking on the carriageway that would block sightlines to

pedestrian crossing points and obstruct mandatory sections of cycle lanes.

Therefore these measures are required to improve the safety of vulnerable road

users. The proposal will be extending the hours of operation of the existing

waiting restrictions in certain areas, and formalising the Order to match existing

marked double yellow line restrictions in other areas. There is no extension to the

physical length of restrictions and therefore no unrestricted all-day parking spaces

will be lost.

26. In relation to point (a) in the table above, the concern is in relation to the loss of ?2

stage right turns? and ?cycle waiting bays?. The two stage right turn proposals

have been dropped from the final design, as, since this is a new feature for

London, following discussion with Transport for London, the intention is to trial

them first at a signalised junction on the Transport for London road network rather

than at this site. Assuming such trials are successful, they will be further

considered for future implementation at the Townley Road junction. The design

as currently proposed for implementation will not prevent such a feature being

?retro-fitted? in future. Cyclists will therefore turn right into either Townley Road or

Green Dale from East Dulwich Grove as they do under the current layout. The

cycle gate and early start cycle facilities have been retained in Townley Road and

Green Dale. The two waiting bays that were proposed have been removed from

the final design, as they are now considered unnecessary given the number of

cyclists that are expected to be waiting in the cycle lane during any one cycle of

the traffic signals.

27. In relation to point (b) in the table above, the width of the buildout has been cut

back in the final design to further assist left turning vehicles ? a key concern

raised by Dulwich Community Council. Tracking results indicate that vehicles can

turn left without conflict. The design has been fully road safety audited.

But this TMO does not reflect what has now been built and as we know again from the letter issued by Southwark last week and posted earlier on this thread, the scheme has not passed the safety audits.

Plenty of questions to raise at the DCC next week:

Venue: St Barnabas Church (church hall) Calton Avenue, London SE21 7DG

Contact: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer on 020 7525 7234 email [email protected]

Documents here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=5157

[stevie23b]

Dear Beverley, it all seems 'very nice'

[Zebedee Tring]

Stevie, when you say that it seems "very nice", I assume that you are being ironic. From your posting history, I would guess so.

[Tessmo]

I am confused. The cycling features are so different from the plans. From what Southwark says, some features can be added later. But it doesn't sound as though TfL will allow a separate cycle lane with a barrier. That's a huge change from any of the drawings. Is it OK for plans to go through like this? i.e. to get approval from the Dulwich Community Council (elected councillors) for one design, and then go ahead and build something completely different?

[Duvaller]

Given that TFL are paying for it, they can pretty much do it as they want and they can pay scant regard to what the Dulwich Community Council decided.

TFL messed up the junction several years ago and this is their attempt to fix it.

The outcome is they have worsened matters as far as vehicular traffic (esp 37 bus) and cyclists are concerned plus the "desired line" assumption for pedestrians hasn't been adopted to any great extent.

To waste >?250,000 in this manner certainly suggests that an official inquiry should be initiated.

[first mate]

But surely S'wark and even the DCC would have known what would and would not be allowed by TFL before any works went ahead?

[Duvaller]

first mate Wrote:

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

> But surely S'wark and even the DCC would have

> known what would and would not be allowed by TFL

> before any works went ahead?

Exactly. This is now the time for our elected Councillors to convene a public meeting to advise the public on what has happened and what is likely to happen going forward.

Let's see if any of them will put their heads above the parapet to comment.

So, Councillors, let's hear it from you!

[@Woodwarde]

first mate Wrote:

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

> But surely S'wark and even the DCC would have

> known what would and would not be allowed by TFL

> before any works went ahead?

You will see from the report for the Statutory Consultation (issued 1st Sept and link posted above on this thread yesterday) does not show objections from the Police, Fire, Ambulance, Haulage and Freight Associations (ie the statutory consultees). It indicates that the segregated cycling lanes and gates will proceed.

So the 'technical and legislative' issues referred to by Matt Hill in his letter (posted earlier on this thread) have emerged during build. Possibly the result of safety check and audits; possibly late responses to the consultation.

It is unclear why these challenges should emerge so late in the day and whether this situation could have been managed better or avoided.

I understand that Matt Hill will attend the DCC meeting next Weds 9th Sept at St Barnabas Church and can shed some light.

[fazer71]

LOL

We're all MUSHROOMS :)

LOL