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

[Gabe]

I wouldn't worry to much about that right turn being banned. Reading these comments, it seems very unlikely to happen.

It's not even the only major issue at that junction for cyclists. There are more problems: once you've avoided being side-swiped crossing the main road, most cyclists then need to pull across and take a right down Calton Avenue. That turn is also horrible for less experienced or less confident riders. Then, at busy hour, Calton Avenue itself is blocked with traffic and buses (loads of buses for some reason), before you reach the junction at Dulwich village which is absolutely awful for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.

My main concern, personally speaking, is my kids riding to and from Kingsdale School. A lot of kids also ride (or would like to ride) to Dulwich College. And presumably in the reverse direction to the schools like JAGS or Charter. The way the whole area is set-up at the moment doesn't seem to work well for anyone at all at rush hour.

Banning the right turn would be a minor inconvenience for me because I drive that way sometimes. That part of the junction is bad, but it's not even the biggest problem.

[Penguin68]

I do hope that if the right turn is banned for motorists (which I hope it won't be) this ban extends (and is also policed) to cyclists, otherwise we will be having unexpected right turns across traffic by the most vulnerable. In my experience many cyclists do not see themselves bound by the same restrictions as powered drivers.

[Gabe]

"In my experience many cyclists do not see themselves bound by the same restrictions as powered drivers."

Yeah, they're also not empowered in the same way. It's obvious this will create different behaviors.

It's not much of contribution to go down this line of argument. Let's not do anything because some cyclists jump reds... and on and on...

[Penguin68]

No, my point wasn't that this shouldn't be pursued because cyclists (some, by no means the majority) don't feel bound by the same rules as motorists, but rather that, in banning right turns for motorists it will become the presumption that vehicles won't be turning right meaning that a cyclist that does will be at greater risk. Since this whole exercise appears to be about de-risking life for cyclists, this would seem counter-productive.

[Gabe]

I see what you mean, I think. The right run itself is not the prime issue, especially in isolation. Inevitably cyclists will take a right here, even if it's banned. It a natural way to go.

[Penguin68]

Inevitably cyclists will take a right here, even if it's banned. It a natural way to go.

Nuff said...

[@Woodwarde]

Dulwich Community Council 3rd Dec ? headlines

ED Grove/Townley Rd/Greendale agenda topic

- approx 10 questions raised from the floor which should be recorded in the meeting minutes. Southwark Council seemed taken aback by the strength of the opposition from local residents who raised a number of queries about what evidence Southwark Council has that its proposed changes to the junction will improve safety, and what work has been done to model the impact of these changes on the local area.

-Simon Phillips, acting transport policy manager, said that he thought there probably was some background information to the proposal that could be put online, but that it was very hard to model the predicted consequences of junction changes. He also touched on the Southwark Cycling strategy that should be available for consultation soon ( it seems that it is already being consulted on as you can see from the links at the bottom of this post).

-Des Waters, head of public realm at Southwark Council - who was sitting in the main body of the hall - said that he thought extending the consultation period was probably sensible, and would go straight back to his office to check this out.

-it is clear that we really do need more information, answers to our questions, and an extension to the consultation period.

I think we are all at a loss to understand how the proposal can have got this far without asking for the views of residents - who are cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and car-drivers, have children at local schools, and know these local roads very well. We all want this junction to be safe. But we don?t want changes that cause traffic problems all over Dulwich and East Dulwich, and make other junctions and residential roads less safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Cycling Strategy (Southwark Spine) ? online survey

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy

Cycling Strategy (Southwark Spine) ? Interactive Map

http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkcycling/

[DadOf4]

@Woodwarde Wrote:

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

> ....I think we are all at a loss to understand how the

> proposal can have got this far without asking for

> the views of residents....

Seriously, Southwark Council need to get this sorted out. Their "consultation" process is just a joke - I saw this before with their botched CPZ proposal for ED.

Based on a tiny number of data-points pointing to a problem, pay a load of consultants to come up with detailed (expensive) plans on how to fix that problem.

They need to engage with the community much much sooner on these things.

[spider69]

I think we are all at a loss to understand how the proposal can have got this far without asking for the views of residents - who are cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and car-drivers, have children at local schools, and know these local roads very well. We all want this junction to be safe. But we don?t want changes that cause traffic problems all over Dulwich and East Dulwich, and make other junctions and residential roads less safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Like most things with Southwark they just hoped they could slip it through.

Perhaps the Cllrs could be more on the ball?

[BrandNewGuy]

@Woodwarde Wrote:

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

> -Simon Phillips, acting transport policy manager,

> said that he thought there probably was some

> background information to the proposal that could

> be put online, but that it was very hard to model

> the predicted consequences of junction changes.

So we've listened to some cyclists (who've roped the schools in to make general noises about 'safety') but we don't have a cycling strategy quite yet ? but we want to go ahead with the changes anyway, despite the fact we also have no idea what the consequences might be.

Quite brilliant.

[rch]

This scheme has been kicking around for a couple of years now, but the no right hand turn is new.

My guess is that the No Right Turn had to be inserted due to the timing issues created by the diagonal crossing and all four arms having simultaneous pedestrian crossing... I suspect that if the diagonal crossing was taken out and the ped timings staggered, it would be fine. I would have put this point on the list of questions to ask, but I didn't get a chance to speak last night.

Bear in mind that the diagonal crossing has indeed become popular, but this is mainly as a result of the pedestrians avoiding the sheep pens while the traffic is stopped in all four directions by the lollipops. So once the sheep pens are gone then the junction becomes easily crossable.

But the officers are correct about the possibility of losing the funding if this consultation is extended. If this had been consulted on before the election then we would have had more time... and to remove the No Right Turn will probably require a slight redesign of the light phasing which could trigger another consultation.

My frustration is that all the redesign was meant to do is to remove the sheep pens by bringing the corners closer together, but all this other stuff has obfuscated the whole point. It looks to me like too many "special interest groups" got involved in the pre-consultation, which is also what killed the redesign six years ago.

[spider69]

It looks to me like too many "special interest groups" got involved in the pre-consultation, which is also what killed the redesign six years ago.

Like most things now in ED and Southwark .A small band can push thru whatever their fancy is at any given moment.

[rch]

Also, a quick note about parking at Alleyn's. It's true that they were refused relocated parking spaces by planning officers, but I'm not sure that MOL was the reason - the reason that I'm aware of is that the previous Southwark Plan restricted parking across the borough in all new building developments... it took a good 4 or 5 years to get a special dispensation for Dulwich agreed because of our geographical distances and poor public transportation.

In fact, it's mostly because of the Dulwich dispensation that JAGS was able to keep as much parking as they have in their theatre development application.

I asked officers a couple years ago if on site parking would be granted if schools applied again now and my understanding is that this would be possible.

School staff parking (not just JAGS and Alleyn's, but Charter as well) in the residential streets is now a major problem in Dulwich, but the transportation situation down here is really too awful for teachers who need to carry books etc.

If we want to get people out of their cars in Dulwich we need to drastically improve the bus services running east to west. But even something as simple as getting the 42 bus extended along East Dulwich Grove has been impossible over eight years of lobbying TfL.

We actually talked about starting up our own bus service at one point, maybe that's what we should do...

[rch]

Yes, spider... it's very frustrating. But the politicians support this approach...

Maybe we should all form a new special interest group??

[Nigello]

How about a roundabout?

[Jennys]

Re numbers of staff at Jags and Alleyns. Jags "whole school travel plan" States that up to 250 staff are on site at any one time and that around 40% of them normally drive to work. I cannot find the figure for Alleyns on line but there is a list of teaching staff. I haven't counted them although it is long list. In addition to teaching staff there will be professional admin/support staff members, school site staff, catering staff etc. many of these people will need to drive to work and park on surrounding streets.

[Townleygreen]

So, what are you saying, Jennys? That you want a CPZ for this area?!

Otherwise, what is your point?

[James Barber]

Hi nigello,

Roundabouts are much more dangerous for all road users than traffic lights. So don't think that's the answer.

Hi rch,

I don't see why feedback saying keep the right turn from Townley Road would need a new scheme and another consultation.

Hi BNG,

The suggestions have been made with the best possible intents. But it is easy to get carried away and not fully appreciate how others will view such a scheme. The Safe Routes To School committee is made up of local parents, school reps, the council, Southwark Living Street, Southwark Cyclists. I used to be the Southwark Cyclists rep until about three years ago. They/we did lots ofp promoting walking to school week, cycling to school weeks, cycle training, walkin to school trains, travel planning with schools. It seems pretty clear that we need phyiscal changesto make our streets more conducive to parents letting their children travel to school on their own safely.

Getting those phyiscal changes right is really tricky as this scheme amply demonstrates.

Hi Jennys,

It would help if the private schools didn't have such massive footprints in terms of distance their pupils travel. As Townleygreen mentions without controlled parking not much you can do about detering teachers and parents parking locally who live some distance away. And the most vocal opposition to the rejected controlled parking came from people living near this junction. It's non starter.

Hi spider69,

Thats not very fair. As a local councillor when I received information about this proposed scheme I immediately objected to the parts I disagreed with and told people about it.

[QueenMab]

I'd just like to add another informed voice to say that as both a motorist and cyclist who uses this junction on an almost daily basis, as it stands this junction is is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS for cyclists. (It's dangerous for motorists too but you're probably only going to get a dented car or whiplash, rather than knocked to the ground and killed). Please believe me, it really is only a matter of time before someone is killed or seriously injured here. I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been hit by traffic turning right from Townley Road, both on a bike and in a car. The problem is that cyclists and cars going straight ahead from Green Dale (which is itself a major cycle route up to Denmark Hill) have priority, but right-turning vehicles coming from Townley Road very often simply do not see cyclists (or motorists) coming the other way, and hence turn right across their path. Many drivers in fact assume they actually have right of way over traffic coming the other way and will shout aggressively at you, having narrowly avoided hitting you. A No Right Turn is a good solution from this point of view. An advance signal for cyclists going over would definitely help as it would avoid cyclists waiting at the junction from entering into conflict with traffic. HOWEVER, this does not help cyclists who are not already waiting but following the flow of traffic coming down from Green Dale and across the junction, so it might reduce but not entirely avoid the likelihood of an accident.

Genuinely, my only concern with this junction is that it be made safer for everyone. As it stands it really isn't. Hopefully Southwark can come up with a solution which prioritises safety whilst causing the minimum of disruption.

[Zebedee Tring]

Townleygreen, you shouldn't assume that everyone who happens to disagree with you wants a CPZ for the area. So please stop answering such posts with phrases such as "a CPZ then?" - it's becoming somewhat wearing.

[Jennys]

No i don't want a CPZ, Townley Green. I personally do not need to park in the area around the junction. I fully recognise that school staff need to park. I recognise that students come from a wide area and that sadly being the case the coaches are very necessary. My point is that the cars and coaches parked near the schools make the roads even more dangerous for pedestrians and indeed for cyclists. My comments concern safety pure and simple.

[Townleygreen]

ZebT, I DON'T want a CPZ. I'm just pointing out that a CPZ might solve the problem that has been raised.

[BrandNewGuy]

How? By forcing school staff not to use their cars? I wish far fewer of them drove, but I don't see how a CPZ would do anything aother than move the parking problem nearby ? which was the chief objection to a CPZ locally in the first place.

[Charles Notice]

The teachers have always parked close to the school without any problems. The junction has always been there and there has always been a right turn. Most older established residents have always managed to use this junction safely. What has changed apart from a silly plan from Southwark Council. Which opinion has shown to be against it.

Leave in peace

For cyclists the option is to dismount if they fear they are in danger.

[nunhead_man]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> For cyclists the option is to dismount if they

> fear they are in danger.

Why? - cyclists are part of the obesity / type 2 diabetes and air quality solution, not part of the problem.

What about pedestrians - what do you suggest they get off of? (grammer? - yes; not public skool)

Car drivers need to get out and push their cars