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

[Villager]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The trouble with solely basing highway safety

> improvements on reported crashes is significant

> number of crashes that involve injury are not

> reported. They're treated by hospitals and that's

> it. We learn nothing. For slight injuries from

> memory I've seen peer reviewed papers suggesting

> only a fifth are actually reported. With random

> probability waiting until some is killed or

> seriously injured often would mean fixing a

> location making safer when its unlikely to have a

> crash for some considerable time even decades. The

> research even found under reporting of death on

> highways.

>

James,

What you said here is pure speculation. Unless you can quote actual facts and identify the so-called "peer reviewed papers", what you have said is meaningless and counter productive. Let us have FACTS, not perceptions. I live very close to the junction. I cycle or walk across it every single day and I can assure you it is not unsafe. I have never seen an accident there in 20 years.

You also said..

>

>My understanding is that such an assessment has been made hence why TfL are willing to fund changes.

>

The reality is that Boris has given TFL as massive allocation to promote cycling. TFL cannot find enough locations where the money can be spent and so they have a massive underspend of ?38Million.

I have facts so I will give you my source :-

http://leftfootforward.org/2014/01/boriss-150m-cycling-underspend/

The sad reality is that anybody who submits a half-assed proposal to TFL (supported by SRS and a bunch of cylcists), will get funds thrown at them. Southwark Councillors were so keen to tap into this money that they came up with the proposal which featured the infamous No Right Turn -irrespective of its knock-on effects.

We now have another illogical and hastily cobbled together scheme with massive pavement build-outs, tight turns and a reduction in the vehicle lanes -with the result that the tail-backs are going to get much worse. Not to mention the increased pollution from vehicles idling in the queues.

[Scootingover]

Villager

Same perspective in the papers last week.

Southwark have no cash and set sights on TfL and get bent out of shape trying to secure funds under 'cycling' related T&Cs that make TfL look better. Southwark get the halo effect and money to boot.

But Southwark, who cares about the money when you create havoc in the process and demonstrate shocking application of public money and contempt for real concerns and local knowledge.

You should vote yourselves out, why wait?

[Duvaller]

Come in James Barber,

Villager has challenged you to come up with facts that support your comments yesterday.

He provided the source of his facts. So it's up to you to give some credence to your views.

There's been far too much twaddle expressed by Councillors and some others saying the junction is unsafe. It is a very safe junction. The official police accident stats prove it. Look them up. So for you to say ""only a fifth are actually reported"" is just more blatant twaddle. Pure unfounded speculation created to further a particular view.

[James Barber]

Hi Tessmo,

I would support a fresh pairs of eye reviewing 8A option.

Looking at the percentage above capacity each option presents - and I would suggest that at the very peak hours the current junction is over capacity - 8A throughout the day has the lowest over capacity. But that may be the wrong way to assess these things.

Hi Villager,

I'm at work so don't have themto hand but Google Scholar throws up -

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/234.short

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/15/1/13.short

Neither is the research I remembering reading. This might have been it - http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=365831

/ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001457594900914

[Penguin68]

Frankly, forumites are prepared to report a sparrow sneezing locally, so I would be very surprised if any accidents of any seriousness have occurred at this junction which have not been picked-up on - even if not in reported figures. As a fairly regular reader I cannot remember any such reports (happy to be corrected on this) - which makes me feel that national statistics on under-reporting are not necessarily valid in this instance.

[Villager]

James,

Your actual words above were ....""I've seen peer reviewed papers suggesting only a fifth are actually reported""

None of the links you provided say anything that remotely supports what you said. Not one.

Villager

[wulfhound]

I walked home past the junction this evening and I am struggling to see how the shared cycling and pavement area will work as it runs from Calton to East Dulwich Grove. It is not wide as it is right now - two people could walk together comfortably, or a mother with pram and young child alongside. How on earth this is expected to be a shared cycle and pedestrian way is hard to imagine. Well it's not hard to imagine actually, it's just not possible. Unless perhaps it's one way for pedestrians to make way for cyclists?

It's a shared area *now* - as in, you are legally allowed to cycle on the pavement of Townley Road between Calton Avenue junction and EDG. Virtually nobody does (perhaps some school kids?), but it's legal to do so.

The plan appears to *remove* the shared area and replace it with a seperate pavement (on which cycling won't be allowed) and a kerb-separated cycle lane alongside. Seems sensible to me - shared cycle/pedestrian spaces at busy junctions are a bad idea.

If that's not the case, can you point me at where to look on the new drawing for the shared space? What I'm reading says "Existing shared use area to be removed", but possibly I'm looking in the wrong place?

[@Woodwarde]

TfL FOI info below and 2 docs attached: the original bid assessment by TfL and confirmation from TfL that the ?285k is awarded

Our ref: FOI-xxxx

Thank you for your email received on 16 January 2015 asking for information about Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require.

1. Please supply copies of all formal documentation, plans and correspondence related to funding bids, analysis and funding confirmation that cover in whole or in part, the Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove/Green Dale junction in SE22, from 2011 to date.

Please find attached the following documents

? Southwark?s Cycle to School Partnership bid containing a request for funding for improvements to the junction of Townley Road, East Dulwich Grove and Green Dale. (on Southwark website)

? The Southwark Bid Assessment (NEW)

? The Southwark ? Cycle to School Partnership funding confirmation letter (NEW)

? The original Proposed Junction Improvement plan (submitted as part of Southwark?s bid) (NEW)

? The revised Townley Road ? Consultation Layout produced for consultation (on Southwark website)

? The Safer Routes Map containing possible local routes in Southwark (submitted as part of Southwark?s bid) (NEW)

2. Please supply all correspondence, bids and analysis related to the following TfL fund allocation

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1449/285_000_of_funding_awarded_to_support_cycling_in_dulwich_and_herne_hill

? All information available is provided in the attached documents as listed above.

3. Please supply copies of all correspondence with Southwark Council in relation to London Cycle Design Standards and their use at the Townley Road/ East Dulwich Grove junction.

? There have been meetings with Southwark officers to discuss design options in the context of the LCDS. There are no minutes available from these meetings.

4. Please supply any information and documentation in relation to communications, meeting minutes and involvement with, whether direct or via Southwark Council, the Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group.

? We are not aware of any communications with the Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[hopskip]

James

the times of day for measurements were queried by someone on Saturday. Unlike the original JMP report, the Aecom modelling uses 12-13.00 as the between peaks and the high evening peak between 5-6pm. JMP recognised and modelled the afternoon school run between 3-4 when the coaches are busy at that junction. Aecom don't seem to have modelled that.

But an independent report would need to be 'independent', as Southwark will not be trusted

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Tessmo,

> I would support a fresh pairs of eye reviewing 8A

> option.

>

> Looking at the percentage above capacity each

> option presents - and I would suggest that at the

> very peak hours the current junction is over

> capacity - 8A throughout the day has the lowest

> over capacity. But that may be the wrong way to

> assess these things.

>

>

[Tessmo]

@James Barber

James, if you support a fresh pair of eyes reviewing the 8A option, how would you suggest we make this happen? Can you ask Andy Simmons, the chair of the DCC, on our behalf?

Interesting what @hopskip has just posted up, too. It looks as if AECOM haven?t modelled the really busy time of day when the coaches are going through the junction. Why?

@Woodwarde

I?ve had a quick look at the documents you?ve attached.

The Southwark Bid Assessment is baffling. The original proposal seems to have got only 3/5 - that is it goes only some way to meeting the criteria that it ?demonstrates how it will increase the number of children cycling to school?. Maybe this means that you have to do much more to encourage children to cycle than reconfiguring a junction? You could, for example, make sure you don?t clog up the local streets where children live with displaced traffic?

The original bid scores 0/5 for ?a clearly stated commitment from the schools to not only implement the supporting measures but to take responsibility and implement change themselves?. Which doesn?t sound good.

And finally the proposal scores 0/5 for ?A clear and acceptable approach to monitoring and evaluation.? Again, why? Why is no one going to evaluate whether this new proposal for the junction works? When it looks to all of us as if the new design is an optimistic stab at features that might be OK rather than a reasoned and considered proposal based on evidence and consultation?

Anyone got any ideas about how to get TfL involved in this? Surely they can?t hand out a quarter of a million pounds without some kind of plan to monitor whether the money was well spent?

[Penguin68]

Surely they can?t hand out a quarter of a million pounds without some kind of plan to monitor whether the money was well spent?

Sadly this is what many public (and private) bodies do all the time - most people think that the effort is best placed in planning, not post-implementation monitoring - but it is only monitoring which will validate whether the plans were right in the first instance. I see this everywhere - advertising campaigns are pre-tested, but very rarely are they then monitored closely, for instance, and then only reviewed long after a campaign is completed, when there is no chance of adjustment or improvement. For public spend this is even worse. ?250k is probably 'below the radar' for TFL spend, which must be in the millions if not billions (think what cross-rail is costing, or the work to take the tube to Battersea)

[slarti b]

@Wulfhound

Think you are correct that this is not shared pedestrian\cycle space in Option 8A. But Woodwarde raises a valid point about Option 8A taking space out of the the existing pavement and allocating it to the "signalised cycle bays".

Currently, in the morning there is often a jam where pedestrians going North West along Townley (to JAPS\JAGS) meet those going opposite direction ( pupils to Alleyns). From a rough measure last night I reckon the pavement is about 3.1 metres wide at narrowest point. Under 8A this will be reduced suddenly to a pinch point of 2.5m by the cycle bay. Given the abrupt reduction in pavement width I suspect this will lead to pedestrians stepping into the cycle bay, increasing danger both for them and the less confident cyclists using the bays (if any!).

I believe most confident cyclists will bypass the bays and carry on the main road to avoid delays. However, another point raised on Saturday was this could cause problems with aggressive car drivers who expect cyclists to use the cycle path and bays.

This is really not a good place to be trying out these experimental layouts, particularly given the complete absence of any forecasts of user numbers or criteria for success. If it doesn't work, will be stuck for another 10 years till Southwark can get funding to put it right?

[James Barber]

I've suggested to the Labour administration who I would choose as an independent voice to review all the materials so far - John Dale of Urban Movement.

[mockingbird]

John is a traffic engineer, transport planner and urban designer with 29 years? professional experience that spans from strategic transport planning to concept design. Well known as a champion of better town and city streets, he was Director being responsible for Urban Initiatives? Movement + Streets portfolio before founding Urban Movement. John is an urban realm design advisor to several UK local authorities, including the City of Edinburgh, the London Borough of Ealing and Southend Borough Council, as well as a Design Review Panellist for Transport for London and Urban Design London. He is a Trustee of LIVING STREETS, was a contributing author to Manual for Streets 2, and is a former Board member of the Transport Planning Society.

http://www.urbanmovement.co.uk/uploads/1/4/1/9/14194615/john_dales.pdf

[James Barber]

Hi Tessmo,

I would suggest people email this request in as part of the consultation response and ask their local councillors to support this. At the Dulwich Community Council we can affirm our support for this.

I will also suggest directly that it would be better to have an indie report presented AT the DCC meeting to avoid any time delays. I have asked for this.

Hi villager,

I'm at work - give me a break!

Hi P68,

Spot on - most private and public bodies don't do post project reviews. and rarely go back a year or two later to check. BUT if things really bad that can force a review - but none of us want that to happen.

[wulfhound]

Think you are correct that this is not shared pedestrian\cycle space in Option 8A. But Woodwarde raises a valid point about Option 8A taking space out of the the existing pavement and allocating it to the "signalised cycle bays".

Currently, in the morning there is often a jam where pedestrians going North West along Townley (to JAPS\JAGS) meet those going opposite direction ( pupils to Alleyns). From a rough measure last night I reckon the pavement is about 3.1 metres wide at narrowest point. Under 8A this will be reduced suddenly to a pinch point of 2.5m by the cycle bay. Given the abrupt reduction in pavement width I suspect this will lead to pedestrians stepping into the cycle bay, increasing danger both for them and the less confident cyclists using the bays (if any!).

Won't the Alleyns kids be crossing diagonally now, though? Perhaps that's why they've kept the crossing island east of the bays too, to keep pressure off that pinch point a bit? Would be helpful if they gave us a lot more WHY to go with the WHAT...

I believe most confident cyclists will bypass the bays and carry on the main road to avoid delays.

Not so sure myself - I tend to avoid the busiest times, but Townley can be awkward to filter up on a bike when it's full of queueing traffic. So the protected feeder lane looks useful from that point of view, giving a clear run from Calton to the lights, but it depends how bad the delay is from the "gate" signal. If you use the feeder, it looks like you have to use the bay.

However, another point raised on Saturday was this could cause problems with aggressive car drivers who expect cyclists to use the cycle path and bays.

Can't see that being too bad, honestly - it's a queue, and a turn. Traffic speeds on Townley northbound aren't high. Those sort of problems are much more prevalent in the other direction - southbound I'm usually turning right from Townley on to Calton, so I ride centre of the lane from the lights to the turn. Vast majority of drivers know the score, but there's always the 1-in-10 or so impatient thickos.

This is really not a good place to be trying out these experimental layouts, particularly given the complete absence of any forecasts of user numbers or criteria for success. If it doesn't work, will be stuck for another 10 years till Southwark can get funding to put it right?

Given its experimental nature, we need a clear answer to that one. I'm in favour of them trying this kind of thing, but there needs to be a mechanism to unwind (and, most importantly, money put aside to do so) if they don't work out.

[holymoly]

I measured up as best I could in the dark, on my way home.

Wulfhound - I used the wrong term. I meant the separation between pedestrians and cyclists was unclear. I have enlarged the consultation drawing and can see some sort of separation is drawn. If you are using the cycle lane on Townley then it looks like there is a road barrier that keeps you in the cycle lane and forces you into the area where the cyclists holding bay is. The use of armadillos keep you in the lane before that but there then seems to be a more solid structure that actually forces you in. You can see it if you enlarge the drawing.

The pavements seem to get some narrowing - say from 3.1m (currently as just measured) to 2.6m at the tightest point, as mentioned in a post above. I don't know if this affects the people who walk that way now with prams, toddlers on scooters etc - and so if you are a peak time pedestrian there then make sure you are familiar with the proposed change. The rest of the space creation must come from the removal of the island and the road markings alongside it.

And just to mention - that the paving stones go. If you enlarge the diagram you can see that the pavement area becomes tarmac - or at least tarmac is written over the drawing. That is a shame and a loss - just need to say that!

Finally - help me on the Copemhagen turn. To make the 2-stage right turns, you seem to end up in front of the ASL with a competent and perhaps large group of cyclists ready to head straight into you. How does that work?

[slarti b]

@Wulfhound

- Alleyns pupils crossing diagonally on junction? Not convinced. From my observations of the junction many cross Townley south of existing "cattle pens". I reckon under Option 8A they will cross Townley at traffic island because it is more direct. If so, they will cross the pinch point caused by the bays.

- Confident cyclists using bays? I agree that currently it is a pain to get to the ASL on Townley from Calton. But, I wouldn't cycle into a bay if I thought the light might change to red delaying me. In this respect both Options 7 and 10 are better since they have a full cycle lane to the ASL.

- Drivers expecting cyclists to use cycle lane\bay. Interesting your point about it not being dangerous because cars are going slowly. Maybe that is a reason why, although it is a very busy junction at the morning peak it actually has a much better accident record than others close by. Do you think this undermines the case for the (IMHO) over engineered cycle bays in option 8A?

Whoever is right, what concerns me is that I see no evidence the council has considered these sort of points and the meeting on Saturday didn't reassure me.

[wulfhound]

Finally - help me on the Copemhagen turn. To make the 2-stage right turns, you seem to end up in front of the ASL with a competent and perhaps large group of cyclists ready to head straight into you. How does that work?

I'm not a gigantic fan of the Copenhagen turn as proposed here (in as much as, if a cyclist can't deal with traffic, EDG is probably the wrong road for them - not a road I'd ever use with the family - although it seems the council has other ideas), but it works as everyone's moving off from a standing start.

And just to mention - that the paving stones go. If you enlarge the diagram you can see that the pavement area becomes tarmac - or at least tarmac is written over the drawing. That is a shame and a loss - just need to say that!

That's very misleading of them if true - the picture plainly indicates paving stones.

I reckon under Option 8A they will cross Townley at traffic island because it is more direct. If so, they will cross the pinch point caused by the bays.

Surely they're doubling back on themselves to do that? Seems like they ought to be able to narrow the back of the bay a bit to alleviate the pinch.

- Drivers expecting cyclists to use cycle lane\bay. Interesting your point about it not being dangerous because cars are going slowly. Maybe that is a reason why, although it is a very busy junction at the morning peak it actually has a much better accident record than others close by. Do you think this undermines the case for the (IMHO) over engineered cycle bays in option 8A?

Good question. The case for the bays seems very much dependent on the Quietway and whatever else SRS have planned. Accident rate measures accidents - it doesn't measure whether a road layout is a barrier in other ways. Sheep pens have a low accident rate, but are nevertheless an inhumane and miserly way to lay out a street.

For the existing users, the bays are undeniably over-engineered. If the QW gets built to the gold standard or somewhere near, and some of the SRS plans goes ahead, they make sense - you could get 4-5x the present numbers of cyclists, with a high proportion of young riders - but it's about as clear as mud what the rest of the QW will look like. Right now this junction is one of the weaker links, but by no means the weakest (Calton/Court/Village is obviously worse). If the QW gets built to the bare minimum standard (basically paint and signposts, a pure PR job) and none of the SRS stuff happens, you'll get the same riders as now in slightly higher numbers.

[Tessmo]

What makes me want to weep is that so far thoughtful and considered discussion like this - how will the proposal work? is it the best solution? how will it be monitored and evaluated? - has been completely ignored. Even the experts at the Saturday session didn't seem too bothered about the detail. (Run away now children and let the grown-ups get on with the job.)

As @wolfhound says, is there money put aside to put it all right if the new features don't improve the junction - or even make it worse?

I am still concerned about the bigger picture. If the new design decreases the efficiency of the junction for cars, lorries, coaches, etc, they won't just disappear. They will find other routes, increasing congestion on residential roads. Or they will sit there, engines idling, increasing air pollution.

I am all for encouraging more cycling and walking to school. Great if the 4x4s stay in Wandsworth, and a sea of cyclists appears in Dulwich. But this latest design just seems to me to be a Field of Dreams fantasy i.e. if you build it, they will come. Meanwhile, the few who venture out will find themselves caught up in one huge great big angry traffic jam.

[holymoly]

definitely says tarmac

[Green Goose]

SRS sent a message around on 27th Feb saying......

"""Time is absolutely critical now for the proposed changes to Townley Road Junction. This is our very last chance. Any work must be carried out this summer, as funding will expire in the next financial year. """

Also, Southwark Cllrs are desperate to get this rushed through for reasons mentioned in this thread before.

On the other hand, some of us still have questions unanswered and there are only 9 days to go before the consultation ends.

I certainly have questions awaiting answers from their nominated contact ie Mr Mascord.

If any questions remain unanswered then there is a case to be made that the consultation was not performed in an adequate manner and hence is invalid.

Might I suggest we all get our questions in before it is too late. Mr Mascord can be contacted on [email protected]

[first mate]

Proof, if proof were needed, that a range of major changes are being rushed through with only the appearance of consultation.

[Derwent Groover]

I have observed that some saturation of the junction is caused by parents using the junction twice within a few minutes because they are dropping the kids off. It's not too much of an issue with those who use Greendale to drop off and loop back the big problem is Hillsboro Rd.

So I offer up two suggestions for debate:-

At Hillsboro they cut across the west-bound traffic using the cross-hatch box. This interrupts the traffic flow in BOTH directions. Then a few minutes later, after the U-turn, they emerge from Hillsboro and turn left. Invariably the west-bound traffic slows to let them out.

This is double-dipping and it really messes up the efficiency of the junction and is probably the main reason that the longest tailbacks are westbound in the morning.

I therefor offer up two suggestions for consideration and debate:-

1. Make Hillsborough one-way (in from EDG going East) for the first 50 metres. That way none of the local residents are inconvenienced and the Chelsea tractors can still use it but have to exit at the far end.

2.Get Alleyns to assist by using their semi-circular drive in front of the main building as a one way drop-off road ie in one gate and out the other. That way, half the Chelsea tractors would not need to use the EDG/Townley junction provided the exit from Alleys was made left turn only. Alleyns parents dropping off contribute to the problem so why shouldn't Alleyns assist with the solution?

On a similar theme, if they have been given approval to use the Sea Cadets site as new parking, why not get them to use this as a part time drop off location instead?

[BrandNewGuy]

1. No! Alleyns themnselves suggested this option a few years ago. I'm not being inconvenienced even more by traffic created by them, so...

2. Is the way forward. They have plenty of land - let them soak up all the traffic they create and do nothing to deter.