Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

tomdhu, like you I think that the proposals are a complete dog's dinner, especially the proposed banning of right turning traffic from Townley Road into ED Grove. However, unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, it seems from the plan of the proposed "improvements" that traffic coming from the Red Post Hill junction along ED Grove WILL be able to travel straight across the Townley junction towards LL without being impeded by traffic turning right into Townley Road, since there are two traffic lanes shown at the junction. In other words, as far as I am aware there will be no change from the current situation, at least in this respect.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> tomdhu, like you I think that the proposals are a

> complete dog's dinner, especially the proposed

> banning of right turning traffic from Townley Road

> into ED Grove. However, unless I've misunderstood

> what you're saying, it seems from the plan of the

> proposed "improvements" that traffic coming from

> the Red Post Hill junction along ED Grove WILL be

> able to travel straight across the Townley

> junction towards LL without being impeded by

> traffic turning right into Townley Road, since

> there are two traffic lanes shown at the junction.

> In other words, as far as I am aware there will be

> no change from the current situation, at least in

> this respect.


The two traffic lanes will come down to one only because they are planning a dedicated cycling lane. This, plus the build-outs, means there's only room for one lane. Hence eastbound traffic on EDG will be impeded by vehicles turning right.

The implications are enormous as the tailbacks in both directions will be horrendous. They are bad enough between 8:00-9:30 and again from 3:15-17:30. Just imagine!


Tom

>

> The two traffic lanes will come down to one only

> because they are planning a dedicated cycling

> lane. This, plus the build-outs, means there's

> only room for one lane. Hence eastbound traffic on

> EDG will be impeded by vehicles turning right.

> The implications are enormous as the tailbacks in

> both directions will be horrendous. They are bad

> enough between 8:00-9:30 and again from

> 3:15-17:30. Just imagine!

>

> Tom


As a daily user of the 37 bus this will be HORRENDOUS! Also the school buses will be affected and kids will be late for school and later getting home.


Sadly, my research shows that this proposal is a result of a small but very effective cyclists lobby group who have regular meeting with the Council. The Council have been unduly influenced by them and it is to the detriment of all the other users.


It's about time the silent majority made their views felt.

I can well understand cyclists finding it difficult to cross from Green Dale because of traffic turning right from Townley Rd, but surely this could easily be resolved by rephasing the traffic lights. I don't know why the council can't make simple adjustments without spending a fortune on a total and unnecessary redesign.

I don't know why the council can't make simple adjustments without spending a fortune on a total and unnecessary redesign.


Possibly because they are rather more anti-car than (even) pro-cyclist. Most of the improvements (cf Northcross Road:LL) seem more about making life more difficult for motorists than achieving any positive direct end for the constituency purporting to be the beneficiary. Those who are politically either supporting (or directing) the council apparatchiks should note that motorists themselves form not just another constituency, but constituents.

tiddles Wrote:

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

>

> I pity Gilkes crescent


And Gt. Spillmans

And all Calton Ave,

And all Dulwich Village,

Plus all No 37 bus users and other drivers on East Dulwich Grove.

I'm all in favour of changes to make cycling safer, and even in favour of stuff that is mildly anti-car (even though I have a car, I recognise that in residential streets, the less traffic the better), but even then I don't think the new 'no right turn' from Townley into EDG makes any sense. And it needs to be clarified whether eastbound traffic on EDG will in practice be reduced to one lane at the junction, which needs to be avoided at all costs.
I presume there is an obvious reason why not, but why can't there simply be a right-hand turn green light filter at townley rd as there is further down to turn right towards North Dulwich station?

Hi tomdhu, ZDT,

I think you were talknig at cross purposes. East bound slong East Dulwich Grove the current two lanes remain two lanes on the western side of the junctin as now. The westbound two lanes are reduced to two. But very few vehicles use the right hand lane to turn right into Greendale so I'm sure it is some capacity reduction it must ber marginal. Saying that sometimes long tail back along EDG currently.


The big issue for me is the Townley Road banned right turn for what appears a duplicate reason for the southbound cyclsits to get a head start on the main green light phase. Both aren't needed.


I've asked for this scheme to be reviewed by the Dulwich Community Council to ensure a publci meeting people can express views. Although an East Dulwich ward councillor and this scheme is Village ward it would as planned displace vehicles into East Dulwich ward.

Sandyman, unfortunately this wouldn't work because under the proposals there would be only one lane for cars coming from Townley Road into ED Grove, while there are two lanes for cars coming from ED Grove to the Redpost Hill junction, where a green filter right hand turn is feasible.


Any officer report on the proposals should spell out where they think that the traffic that won't be able to turn right any more will go and the effect that this would have on roads in the area. This alone could be enough to kill this aspect of the proposals stone dead.

The problem of making the junction "no right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove may increase once a new school is built on the old Dulwich Hospital site, given that some parents would drive their children to school.
The junction is currently perfectly safe for those who walk. And for those who cycle, the one issue of any substance might be crossing from Green Dale and meeting traffic wanting to turn right from Townley Road. And that's it. So let's not exaggerate the 'problems' at a busy junction that has had three 'slight' incidents since 2005.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Sandyman, unfortunately this wouldn't work because

> under the proposals there would be only one lane

> for cars coming from Townley Road into ED Grove,

> while there are two lanes for cars coming from ED

> Grove to the Redpost Hill junction, where a green

> filter right hand turn is feasible.

>


Oh I see. In that case surely they can come up with a simpler, and cheaper, plan that keeps Townley as two lanes?

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> The junction is currently perfectly safe for those

> who walk. And for those who cycle, the one issue

> of any substance might be crossing from Green Dale

> and meeting traffic wanting to turn right from

> Townley Road. And that's it. So let's not

> exaggerate the 'problems' at a busy junction that

> has had three 'slight' incidents since 2005.


As I said earlier (just repeating this for protection!), I agree that banning the right turn out of Townley Rd is impractical and should be dropped.


However, in my experience it's not true that cyclists only have a problem going straight across or right from Greendale. For example, if you turn right out of Townley Rd on a bike (having either woven your way around the waiting traffic that has blocked the cycle lane or taken your chance stopping in the middle of traffic with impatient drivers in front, beside and behind you) you tend to get crowded or pushed out to the left, which causes problems with traffic coming out of Greendale. Drivers waiting to turn left don't always seem to notice cyclists in the current cycle lane who may be going straight on. Many drivers also sit in the cycle box at junctions.


Let's be honest, turning right at any crossroads feels risky to a cyclist as you're very exposed, even at a less busy and aggressive junction than this one. In addition, drivers going either towards ED accelerate downhill, and if I go that way I don't feel safe until past the Melbourne Grove turn-off. I've often felt the hospital was well placed!


That said, as you said previously, I think this could be improved to the satisfaction of all users by phasing the lights differently.


More generally, I do think it would make practical sense to change the law so cyclists can proceed (with caution) at the same time as pedestrians, which currently would count as jumping a red light. This would vastly improve the next junction with Dulwich Village, for example, and the nightmare at Herne Hill. In Germany, where cyclists share pedestrianised areas there are big signs saying 'walking pace', which works well.

Hi BNG,

I beg to differ. The current junction isn't that safe. Hence the need for two School Crossing Patrols.

I think the Townley right turn should be kept BUT from my experiences that movement appears the most likely to have red light jumpers. I suspect that's part of the reasoning to ban it. A simpler method would be a red light digitial camera added to the proposals to deter this behaviour.


Hi tomdhu,

If I recall correctly you are particularly concerned by no.37 buses westbound along EDG and reduction from two lanes to one lane on the eastern side of the junction for westbound vehicles. Again during rushhour this morning vertually no one except me use the right turn lane into Greendale. It's used so little that I can't see removing it making a material difference.

James, with respect, when the safety figures are in your favour, you quote them, when they're not you ignore them. You can't have it both ways.


And drivers jumping red lights is not relevant to whether or not those lights are desirable.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:


> However, in my experience it's not true that

> cyclists only have a problem going straight across

> or right from Greendale. For example, if you turn

> right out of Townley Rd on a bike (having either

> woven your way around the waiting traffic that has

> blocked the cycle lane or taken your chance

> stopping in the middle of traffic with impatient

> drivers in front, beside and behind you) you tend

> to get crowded or pushed out to the left, which

> causes problems with traffic coming out of

> Greendale. Drivers waiting to turn left don't

> always seem to notice cyclists in the current

> cycle lane who may be going straight on. Many

> drivers also sit in the cycle box at junctions.


That's pretty much an argument for banning all right turns, isn't it?

Hi BNG,

Don't think so. I pointed people to the ww.crashmap.co.uk website so they could look themself at crashes and draw their own conclusion.

This particular junction doesn't have a high crash rate despite the very large volumes and children and vehicles using it. But the council have proposed some big changes to make it much easier to use and hoepfully safer - both for people walking and cycling. Removing the cattle pens is a good step forward.

I would suggest that the safety is really helped by having both School Crossing Patrols. I am concerned that they'll be dropped by Village ward councillors with any new junction design being completed on the ground.

Nunhead man, you misunderstand me. I am certainly not saying its good to drive children to school. But many parents do and will continue to drive them, even though it would be much better for the children's health and for the environment if they walked or cycled.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

>

> > However, in my experience it's not true that

> > cyclists only have a problem going straight

> across

> > or right from Greendale. For example, if you

> turn

> > right out of Townley Rd on a bike (having

> either

> > woven your way around the waiting traffic that

> has

> > blocked the cycle lane or taken your chance

> > stopping in the middle of traffic with

> impatient

> > drivers in front, beside and behind you) you

> tend

> > to get crowded or pushed out to the left, which

> > causes problems with traffic coming out of

> > Greendale. Drivers waiting to turn left don't

> > always seem to notice cyclists in the current

> > cycle lane who may be going straight on. Many

> > drivers also sit in the cycle box at junctions.

>

> That's pretty much an argument for banning all

> right turns, isn;t it?


BNG, if you read my post again, and the previous one, I'm AGAINST banning the right turn. My intention was to share my own experience as in my view there's more danger to cyclists than you say. I suggested two alternative ways to help reach a solution that might work for everyone.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...