slarti b

Cllr Barber Can you help with a dangerous junction. A road safety audit has identified several problem areas affecting cyclists and pedestrians but these are not being properly or promptly addressed by council officers. Other people on this forum have observed near misses and I have seen several myself. I refer of course to the Townley Road\EDG junction. I did a post on the main Townley road thread ( see page http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1426742,1589169,page=44#msg-1589169, just below your comments on the Phase 3 audit) but I understand if you didn't see it. I suggest you read the audit report concentrating on following problems in decreasing priority 3.6 Right turn filter from EDG into Townley not working properly. This is very dangerous and needs sorting ASAP before an accident occurs. 3.2 left turning vehicles from Townley into EDG overunning the ASL on EDG. The Southwark designers don't seem to accept this easily foreseeable problem and their response is unconvincing. Again, this needs looking at as matter of urgency. 3.3 Cyclists turning right into Townley from EDG are exposed. I certainly don't feel comfortable doing it 3.5 Potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at Calton\Townley junction. The cycle path crossing the footway has only just opened so a bit early to say if the audit's warnings are justified. But, cyclists are certainly going along it very fast. It is half term for foundation schools this week so there are not many pedestrians crossing the cycle path yet. Will need to review this w\c 2 Nov when Alleysn and Jags are back I hope that you, as a Councillor, will be able to get the Southwark officers to address these problems rather than ignoring them.

The report confirms the findings of the interim report from May\June this year; Southwark have designed and built a junction that is dangerous for cyclists. It also highlights the additional danger caused by the right turn filter into Townley not working properly. The traffic light issue has been pointed out many times on this forum by different people, indeed I saw a cyclist nearly colliding with a car on Wed morning because of it. Cllr Barber. It is unfortunate that you were unable to read the interim (Stage 2?) report; hopefully you can find time to read this one. If you care about safety at this junction you should 1) Press Southwark and TFL to correct the traffic lights as a matter of extreme urgency. It is outrageous this has not been sorted out after almost 6 weeks of operation. 2) Ask Southwark for their plans to properly address the other dangers identified as soon as possible It is clear that the Southwark officers (named in the report) who designed and managed this "improvement" are reluctant to accept the audit's recommendations. Among other things, they dismissed the findings of the interim (Stage 2?) audit concerning coaches turning left overrunning the ASL and even now have not properly addressed the criticism. I think our councillors should be holding Southwark council to account for this dangerous fiasco.

@Wulfhound You wrote How about the block they've proposed at the top (Townley) end of Calton as an alternative? This would turn top end of Calton into a dropping off spot for JAGS\JAPS and Alleyns parents' cars. Resulting in loads of cars reversing and doing 3 point turns across the road. Not good for a Quietway! This currently happens in Greendale outside JAPS at the moment and is dangerous to cyclist and pedestrians. I can't see anyone from the Village junction using Dovercourt Rd to get to EDG, nor vice versa I disagree. They would do Court Lane\Dovercourt\Townley or Woodwarde\Dovercourt\Townley to avoid the EDG\DV junction The problem with several of the Sustrans options is they propose draconian 'point' solutions for the linear Quietway, which will have significant impacts elesewhere. The Dulwich area has complex and finely balanced traffic patterns which need to be looked at as a whole. In particular taking into account issues such as the massive but short lived increase in traffic at school drop-of time during term. But I don't think this is within the Sustrans' remit

To TownleyGreen, Wulfhound and Bawdy Nan Car use has been decreasing in London for many years now. This is despite the increase in journeys resulting from improvements to the economy and population growth. The main increase is in public transport; cycling is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You talk about London's population increasing by 2 million over the next 10-15 years. If so, it is simplistic and wrong to claim this will be catered for by concentrating on road schemes to benefit cyclists. Even if number of cycle journeys doubled it will have a minor impact. We need to improve and extend public transport and this includes buses, particularly in South East London where there are few tubes. The problem is that many of these pro-cyclist road schemes are poorly thought out (or maybe deliberate obstructive to cars) resulting in severe knock on effects and unintended (though predictable) consequences. So, the militant cyclist "anti-car" agenda ends up producing an anti-bus and pro congestion\pollution outcome. So yes, lets improve cycling facilities but not by messing up the roads for other users and lets not pretend it will magically solve obesity, global warming, world peace etc.

The shambles is getting worse and worse. When I rode through this morning most of the signs were missing (overturned or covered) and the barriers were all over the place. Definitely not looking like a trial pedestrian area and several cars passing through On the other hand there was a camera car parked up, presumably to take photos for fines. Shame the operator didn't actually try and re-erect the signs. Cynical profiteering. If you disagree with this closure and haven't done so already I suggest you sign the petition and share with like minded friends https://www.change.org/p/lambeth-council-reverse-the-loughborough-junction-road-closures-now?recruiter=9143844&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-no_msg

annafb Wrote: > The chaos at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue generally only happens during the Foundation Schools' (Dulwich College, Alleyns and JAGS) termtimes due to parents driving children to school and the school coaches. Dulwich Village junction can get busy outside term time but DV\Calton\Court Lane are much, much worse during Foundation schools term. Proved earlier this year when State schools (and most businesses) were back at work the week after Easter when traffic was fine. But, when JAGS\Alleyns started a week later all the queues\congestion resumed. I suspect many more state school pupils walk\cycle\scoot to school because they are closer, unlike the increasingly wide catchment area for the Foundation schools. Points to consider from this: - Should the Foundation schools be taking responsibility for the high volume of non-local traffic they generate - Is it right they are increasing stress on local parking (eg Calton Avenue, Dovercourt, Townley Road) by increased development and reducing parking spaces in their own grounds - What active steps are the Foundation schools (and their pressure group Dulwich Safe Routes to School) doing to discourage parents from driving their children to school by car.

I am (mostly) a cyclist and I am fully in favour of measures that make my journey easier and safer. However I don't think this should be done at the cost of making life a misery for other road users, whether cars, delivery vans or buses. From a personal viewpoint I also sometimes use buses and a car, like many people in London, so my view is not entirely altruistic! The problem with some of the schemes we are currently seeing is that they are being pushed through for doctrinaire reasons without thinking through the implications and effects on the rest of the community. The closure of Loughborough junction is a particularly bad example of this. I would encourage everyone to make sure their voice is heard at an early stage in the consultation processes and, if you are unhappy , write to your local councillors to ensure that they are aware of what their constituents want. Make sure you know what schemes they support and don't let them take your votes for granted!

Melihoople asked What are peoples thoughts on proposals to close to traffic Turney rd, Court lane & Rosendale rd?? I assume you are talking about Quietways? If so this covered more fully in another thread but, in answer to your question, - Turney Road. One of the published Quietway options involves blocking motor vehicles at bridge by junction with Croxted rd. There was chaos last year when they closed road to repair bridge, hopefully they will have learned from that. - Court Lane 6 options presented at last week's workshop. 2 involved making Court Lane one way\no-entry at junction with Dulwich Village. This would increase traffic on Calton so unlikley to go ahead? 2 "blue sky" options involved closing DV junction to East\West traffic. Apart from having a massive impact on local residents they would also increase traffic on Quietway along Calton . Personally I think these 2 options were straw men 2 Options involved changing priority at Court Lane\Calton junction. - Rosendale closure - I think this is now off the table, but check with your local councillor (Lambeth for this one)

Fazer wrote I heard that they're going to change Carlton venue junction with Townley rd to make Carlton avenue priority.! Zebedee Tring Wrote: > Where have you heard this? Perhaps you're > confusing it with the proposal to give Calton > Avenue priority at its junction with Court Lane. At least I hope that you are. Changing priority at junction of Calton\Townley was suggested at one of the workshops. This would mean road being adjusted to follow route of Quietway and making right turn from Townley into Calton easier\safer for cyclists. I don't think this has made it into any of the options presented so far, probably because this would make Calton more attractive to traffic. And wouldn't be needed if they close Calton. Agree with Fazer about money wasted on undoing previous schemes. A couple of posters have mentioned the Townley junction is nicer for pedestrians. However that is largely because they have removed the cattle pens and islands put in at the last "improvement" 10 years ago! This could have been done much more cheaply and with much less disruption years ago. And remember, that the objective of spending ?250-300k on this junction was to improve it for cyclists, which has barely happened.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Tessmo, > I've asked for copy of latest safety audit. Cllr Barber, Do you have a copy of the safety audit that was carried out in (I think)June before the work commenced?

The right turn filter from EDG into Townley certainly isn't working properly. Last night when I cycled through there were right turning cars on the ASL; stranded by the lights changing without the right turn filter going green. It seems to be intermittent because the filter worked in the next phase. This afternoon there was no right filter phase as well. Given the money and attention that has been spent on this junction it is outrageous that this has still not been fixed a month after the main works finished. I believe the lights are the responsibility of TFL but if Southwark council officers actually cared about the safe and efficient operation of this junction they should be putting pressure on TFL to fix these problems as a matter of urgency.

I cycle through the Junction most days to and from Vauxhall and there are still a lot of vehicles ignoring the misleading 'road closed' signs. This puts Lambeth in a "heads I win, tails you lose" position. If they are using CCTV to levy fines they will raise a lot of revenue from confused motorists. At the same time they can claim the test closure is not causing any congestion problems! Traffic figures resulting from this current botched trial cannot be used in any evaluation of the effect of a properly enforced closure of this important through route.

I think Dulwich Plough is showing all the games as well. They certainly had a game on last night ( France v Romania) though was a bit drowned out by live music. http://www.theploughdulwich.co.uk/offers/rugbyworldcup

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's the concern about partial closure of Court Lane or Calton? Is it a concern about congestion and pushing > traffic onto Woodwarde? Or is there something else? I think there is a general concern about the impact on the wider area of closing roads so yes, all of those and others; such as the effect of road closures on bus routes, both directly and through displaced traffic. For example, when Townley was closed last year due to bridge repairs (Townley closure is one option allegedly being considered) it caused delays and congestion throughout the area. To my understanding, Sustrans have been tasked with recommending a design for the Quietway which will be implemented by Southwark. I do not know whether their brief includes assessing the wider effect of changes they recommend or what authority they have have to push through changes. For all these reasons I think it important that local residents are aware of these workshops and turn up to give their input. @Spider69. The suggestion I heard was that Court Lane would be made No-Entry at the Calton Ave junction end. edit to clarify reason for last year's Turney Road closure

@Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First workshops: initial discussions of possible interventions ..... > IF you are not in the discussion then you don't seem to have a voice. At the Dulwich Society open meeting on Saturday I discovered one of the options being considered is the partial closure of Court Lane. Sustrans also proposed to close the lower end of Rosendale Road to cars so I suspect there will be suggestions to similarly close Calton, Townley and Turney road to through traffic. So, definitely worth coming along to the workshops to give some input and make postive suggestions to improve position for cyclists without massive disruption to residents and other other road users.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic tailing back east on EDG past Melbourne Grove at 8.10 this morning. And that's before most of the local school traffic kicks in. I drove through junction this morning (lift to Brixton because of rain!) and it took 10-15 minutes to get along Townley and left into EDG ( 8.15- 8.30?). Some observations: - the green phase for Townley traffic seems short and few cars can get through. Even fewer when a coach or large vehicle is turning left and has to slow down to take the sharp corner. - cars are getting stranded on or after the ASL on Townley when the lights change due to the long distance between stop line and actual junction. - the junction of Calton and Townley is a real problem. If NW bound Townley->EDG traffic leaves the junction clear for traffic turning right from Townley into Calton, they will never be able to get across. As a result the junction gets blocked and there is a lot of traffic trying to force through onto Townley from Calton. Problem is worsened by drivers frustration at the congestion. - cars (but not large vehicles) are forming 2 clear lanes in the Townley arm and still leaving enough space to keep the (temporary) advisory cycle lane free. This improves the efficiency of the junction and reduces the congestion in Townley and Calton. Interestingly the current configuration is very similar to the Option 10( ? ) which was supported by many local residents but rejected by Southwark Traffic officers based on questionable traffic modelling. - the right turn filter from EDG into Townley seemed to be fixed. This means cars and coaches are no longer getting stuck in middle of junction when lights change. Would be good to know if anyone has seen different this week. If Southwark do implement some of the extra features they originally planned (but were not competent enough to get approval) for I am very concerned about the effect. - The cyclists advanced start at the traffic lights (in itself a good feature) will reduce proportion\amount of time available for cars on both Townley and EDG. - The introduction of the mandatory cycle lane with a 60 cm separator on Townley will mean cars can no longer form 2 lanes on Townley These future features will significantly increase congestion on Calton, Townley and EDG and make the Calton\Townley junction even more chaotic and dangerous. Given that this is on the route of the proposed Quietway I believe major changes will be needed to make it safe for "nervous and inexperienced cyclists" btw I have just seen the safety audit of the final scheme carried out in June this year. It identified several dangerous aspects, most of which had been pointed out by objectors and local residents and ignored by Southwark officers. The most significant criticism was the danger of coaches turning left from Townley to EDG overrunning the cyclists ASL in EDG. This criticism, like most of the safety points in the audit, was rejected by Chris Mascord who designed the scheme. As anyone who observes the junction will know, the safety audit and previous objectors were completely correct and Chris Mascord was wrong. I think our local councillors should raise this issue with Southwark traffic officers as a matter of high urgency before there is an accident.

@wulfhound, re your post yesterday... "Some of my best friends are cyclists". Many\Most of my best friends are cyclists. Several of my work colleagues are cyclists (we have an office Brompton!). My family cycle. I am a cyclist (if cycling 40-50 miles a week 4-5 days a week to work for last 15 years qualifies me as one). I am also a regular bus and tube user, a pedestrian, an occasional car driver and sometimes I use mini cabs and taxis. So yes, like you, I want to improve things for cyclists. But, unlike you, I do not want to do this in a doctrinaire manner at the expense of all other road users and local communities. I don't want my 37 bus delayed by the botched redesign of the EDG\townley junction or my P4 bus by the possible partial closure of Court Lane due to the Quietway. I think a gradual, persuasive, evidence based approach is better than poorly thought, out grandiose schemes that appeal to grandstanding politicians but delay and alienate the majority of road users. You wrote... > The money was there, the political will to do something was there, but the Right-To-Turn-Right mob torpedoed any chance of a good outcome. Result? A watered-down scheme that p***ed a small fortune up the wall. What a misleading statement. If you look at the Mouchel, JMP and AECOM reports there were plenty of other options that would have improved safety for cyclists but were ignored by the council. The "right turn ban" option 7 was a last minute addition at the request of Southwark. I assume this unrealistic option was pushed forward (despite the advice even of the council's tame consultancy) due to the political will you mention. However, the "political will" was supported, not by any democratic mandate, not by any independent evidence base but by unrepresentative, undemocratic pressure groups such as Southwark Cyclists and the arrogant, naive, misleading, sanctimonious, foolish and hypocritical "Safe Routes to School" group who did not care about the effect of their choice on the local community. What aspects of the current scheme are you unhappy with? - The absence of the "Copenhagen" right turns rejected by TFL? We warned the council that these were untested but were ignored. But they removed the island thus exposing cyclists turning right into Townley anyway - The "waiting bays for inexperienced cyclists" Ditto. I recall Chris Mascord, the council\AECOM employee\contractor justifying these very misleadingly at the open meeting Southwark eventually arranged. - The non-functioning cyclist advanced lights? To me these are fundamental to protecting south bound Greendale cyclists and Southwark had plenty of time to ensure they could be implemented. Yet again Southwark screwed up but maybe this will change - The lack of other measures to protect southbound Greendale Cyclists? eg the elephants feet tracks and other road markings put forward by JMP? These were contempuously dismissed by Matt Hill of Southwark as not complying with current standards and would not be needed because of all the other gold plated, up to the date measures Southwark were going to include (but haven't). None of these are the fault of your self styled "Right-To-Turn-Right mob" ( actually various democratic groups of hundreds of local residents who know and use the junction). The people who have "p***ed a small fortune up the wall" are Southwark Council, their officers and contractors, justified by their supporting pressure groups, Safe Routes to School and Southwark Cyclists. The scheme as implemented is currently a dangerous shambles. Southwark have so far ignored all advice and warnings about the dangerous changes they have made. I hope the current layout can be remedied before there is an accident.

I have been on holiday for last 3 weeks and I have only just had a chance to see the results of the "improvements". Yesterday at about 8:30 AM, the queue along Townley Road stretched back almost to Dovercourt, far longer than it used to (presumably due to reduced junction capacity) obviously leading to increased pollution. This morning I spent some time cycling across the junction and observed major issues: A big problem (as predicted and warned against) is the left-hand turn from Townley into EDG. Coaches, and even large vans, were swinging right out to get round this corner. This led to them overrunning the advanced stop line in EDG heading north-east (luckily no cyclist in it at the time). Also, to make the turn they were slowing right down and as a result on a couple of occasions cars following them were left stranded by the red lights blocking the cycle advanced stop line on Townley. Even turning left on my bike felt very tight and, because I had to take the corner wide, I felt much more exposed to vehicles following me round. Vehicles, particularly coaches, turning right from EDG into Townley Road were another big issue. Frequently they got stuck in the middle of the junction when the EDG lights had turned red and finished their turn when other lights had turned green leading to possible conflicts. I also saw coaches stranded across the EDG pedestrian walkway when the light turned red causing the lollipop man to complain. I tried several times cycling across EDG from Greendale to Townley Road. At the moment the cyclist advanced start signals are not active (how on EARTH did Southwark planners not foresee that?) and I believe the danger from right hooking is WORSE than before. Eg. - cars turning right from Townley into EDG appeared to be starting closer to the turn giving cyclists less time to get over the junction - the removal of the traffic island in Townley meant cars were cutting the corner turning right into EDG - cars from Townley which had been stuck behind vehicles making the slow left turn into EDG speeded up when their right turn became clear, increasing the risk of them colliding with southbound Greendale cyclists - subject to checking, I believe there are no markings or guidelines to remind cars turning right from Townley into EDG that they are making a right turn across what is expected to be a high volume cycle way. I realise that, due to the incompetence of the Southwark planners and despite assurances, the work has not yet been completed. However even when it has, many of the issues above will not be improved. Most of these issues were anticipated by local residents but their warnings to the council were ignored. I believe we urgently need a review of the safety of this "improved" junction by a reputable, independent traffic consultancy who can give an objective opinion. This will of course rule out AECOM and their sister organisation, Conway.

@Edcam Don't know about other posts on the forum. The complaint in my post was not about receiving a ticket but the inconsistent application of the rules which, apart from being wrong, invalidates the reasons for the parking restrictions. Have reasonable parking restrictions with clear signs, apply rules fairly and with appropriate discretion (not just letting off your bosses vehicles). Anyone objecting to that would indeed be moaning.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As they should do, ticketing the selfish parkers who leave their cars in the bus lane.. Maybe, maybe not. The area outside Sainsbury's on LL ( I assume OP meant near the Plough?) is not a bus lane but has a restricted parking area. I was ticketed last year when I parked there for a couple of minutes around 8.30 am between 2 big vehicles. I was not obstructing any vehicles. buses or otherwise. I queried the parking guy who had just ticketed me me why he hadn't also ticketed the 2 larger vehicles between which I had parked. One was a Southwark council waste lorry whose driver was having a tea\coffee in local caf?. Parking guy said used his discretion not to ticket Southwark council vehicles. The other was a scaffolding lorry with a big bloke in the passenger seat. He wasn't ticketed because of "Health and safety" reasons (presumably the parking guy didn't want argument with big scaffolding guy) I paid my fine but it grated on me. Partly because I was not obstructing anyone but mainly because the parking guy was not interested in free flow of buses, equal treatment etc. but who he could stick a ticket on without upsetting his bosses or causing him a problem. If illegal parking is delaying other people and enforcement is even handed then I have no problem with people being ticketed. This was not my experience.

@BrandNewGuy Completely agree that crossing wardens are essential, not because of danger but just to herd children across during the pedestrian green phase. I have spoken to one of the wardens who made this point quite strongly. Basically children are often too busy chatting to friends etc to bother paying attention to green lights. Maybe the schools should carry out safety training?

@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!

@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.

@Duvaller @Scootingover I was comparing like for like with 10A vs 8A. Have concentrated on Townley Road arm and potential for congestion back along Townley and Calton. but agree that 10B would be just as good as 10A in that respect and better for EDG traffic. @Bicknell Completely agree with you.

@Wulfhound pedestrians get direct crossings, diagonal crossings, and a timely end to the staggered crossings and sheep pens. Cyclists get a feeder lane on Calton Ave, protected approach on Green Dale and lots of.. "other stuff". Option 10A provides virtually all of this, including "other stuff" such as cyclists early start, 2-stage (Copenhagen) right turn, Trixi mirrors etc. Remember the original reason given for discredited RHT ban was protecting south bound Greendale cyclists from right hooks? Option 10A protects these cyclists better than council's recommended 8A because cars will realise they are turning right and the junction will be operating more efficiently, reducing temptation to rush the turn. Isn't this enough for you? What Option 10A doesn't have is the untested, over-engineered pens for "less confident" cyclists, which will probably lead many of the confident cyclists who do use the junction to avoid the feeder lane and mix it with the ordinary traffic anyway. Have I missed anything? [ As an aside I can imagine the conversations 12 years ago - "we need to build cattle\sheep pens (sorry 'protected refuges') for less confident pedestrians, but if it doesn't work out we can easily change it back next year" ] For local residents, Option 10A will allow the junction to operate more efficiently at the busiest period, reducing congestion (which also affects cyclists ) and lowering the chance of drivers rat-running to avoid an inefficient junction. Common sense also suggests the junction will operate more efficiently at the PM and Inter peak, despite the council's rigged figures. Concerning the Quietway, Chris Mascord speaking on behalf of Southwark last Saturday, said that the Southwark Spine NOT a Quietway was on this route giving leading to up to 400 cyclists an hour using the junction (several other people at the session have confirmed this). Was he just confused, letting out a council secret or just misleading the local community attending the open event? I would expect the Option 10A improvements to fully fit the Quietway criteria. Re funding, the money has been given under TFL's "Cycling to School Partnership". Looking at the info that has been released I struggle to see how this funding can be justified. But that is for another post...