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

[Bicknell]

If a miracle happens, and the council wakes up to the fact that it has local support for option 10 (as the best of a bad bunch), can it put this through without another consultation?

[macutd]

Look! all it needs is a sign saying BEWARE OF ONCOMING CYCLISTS at the traffic lights on Townley rd. If that is the problem.

Cost ?50 , Done!!

[Duvaller]

macutd Wrote:

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

> Look! all it needs is a sign saying BEWARE OF

> ONCOMING CYCLISTS at the traffic lights on Townley

> rd. If that is the problem.

> Cost ?50 , Done!!

Sorry, but we can't possibly have that as it doesn't cost nearly enough. We've got to spend ?Millions.

It also reminds me of a story about Fred and Ted........

Fred: Hey Ted, hows it going?

Ted: Not bad, but the new Labour government just took my paycheck to help build a 10 mile bridge to an un-populated island.

Fred: You wouldn't have bought anything with it anyway, the government controlled economy doesn't produce consumer goods.

[Gabe]

Tessmo -- I agree with that. There are many other local junctions that also need to be addressed and will be impacted by what happens with this project. That's one of the reasons why it's important it doesn't get de-railed.

[Gabe]

Some (most) of the people on this thread are trolling themselves now. It would be vaguely amusing if the tone wasn't so unpleasant.

[Tessmo]

Gabe, I really don't think people are being unpleasant. It's just frustration, I think.

Some people have the view that we don't need to do anything to the junction at all. Personally, I don't agree. I think it could be made safer. But I don't think the council should railroad through a scheme that introduces hazards and make congestion worse - at this junction, at surrounding junctions, and in the area as a whole.

The most important thing is to get this junction right.

[BrandNewGuy]

Gabe Wrote:

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

> Some (most) of the people on this thread are

> trolling themselves now. It would be vaguely

> amusing if the tone wasn't so unpleasant.

?

[Gabe]

I was a bit unkind with that comment. Sorry. But the way I read a few of the posts above is that the council is *only* doing this because TFL is giving them money, which is cynical nonsense.

[Gabe]

Tessmo -- agreed, getting it right is important. So is getting it done. I'm glad there might be some progress... possibly.

Threads such as these can be helpful to getting it right, since most people on here are local or use the junction.

[Bicknell]

Still want to know if the council has to do a 3rd consultation if they change the details of the plan. Any councillors on here know the answer?

[BrandNewGuy]

Gabe Wrote:

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

> I was a bit unkind with that comment. Sorry. But

> the way I read a few of the posts above is that

> the council is *only* doing this because TFL is

> giving them money, which is cynical nonsense.

Ask them what they'd do if they didn't have TFL's cycling money.

[wulfhound]

@hopskip

Very much agree the schools need to take a lot more responsibility in their travel plans - but if those travel plans require further intervention on the roads, some of it potentially more inconvenient than 20mph and a few banned turns, what then? Put it another way - how much inconvenience are you & others prepared to suffer to your own motor trips if the end result is to drastically reduce the school-caused jams?

@Villager

Love the creative thinking re ANPR. Carrot is always preferable to stick, but sometimes nobody makes a big enough carrot. Wonder what it'd take to get them to trial something along those lines a few days a week.

@Duvaller

Given the amount of TaxPayersAlliance-ish rhetoric flying about, I'm not sure the Labourites will be exactly shaking in their boots. But worth remembering that this ?200k, ?285k, whatever it is, has come from a Tory administration keen to promote cycling. It's one of the few things the two parties seem able to agree on (along with the Lib Dems and, of course, the Greens). Don't want to see more cycling in the area? There's always UKIP...

[richard tudor]

Why would UKIP stop cycling?

[Jennys]

Villager Wrote:

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

> Outside school holidays, this junction, and all

> surrounding roads, are very quiet - even during

> the rush hours, so being a technophile, I reckon

> that technology has the answer.

>

> We already have average speed cameras that

> identify cars with ANPR, so if there was a system

> that clocked cars crossing the EDG/Townley

> junction in two directions within 60 minutes, then

> a charge could be levied so that the yummy mummies

> with Chelsea tractors could be charged a premium

> for dropping their kids off every day.

>

Great idea though I suspect you would also catch a few local people doing a weekly shop at Sainsburys.

[Tessmo]

@ wolfhound

Sorry, you weren't talking to me directly, but the point is that school travel plans need to say what they're doing to persuade parents not to bring their children to school by car. You can provide school coaches, even improve local transport, but if parents prefer to drive their children to school (maybe because they then go on to work), then the schools have a responsibility to try to make them change their minds. The schools could say, for example, the local roads round Alleyns and JAGS simply can't cope with all the traffic, it's creating problems for all the children trying to cycle and walk to school safely, it's increasing air pollution and causing congestion at all the local junctions, and we need to find a better solution.

Otherwise it's a bit like having a water pipe with a hole in it flooding the road, but instead of mending the hole, or replacing the pipe, you insist that the only way to minimise the flooding is for everyone who lives nearby to stop having baths or showers.

I think you'll find that local people don't use their cars much to get to work, and are lucky to be near enough to primary and secondary schools for their children to walk or cycle. So I'm not sure the locals reducing their car journeys would have much impact on the problem at all.

[wulfhound]

@richard tudor

They wouldn't, couldn't, and AFAIK don't want to. But in terms of the problems that the other parties' London Assembly politicians (& most, though by no means all, councillors) think can be somewhat alleviated with a big increase in the amount of people cycling citywide (obesity, air quality/climate, congestion & public transport overcrowding due to population growth etc.), UKIP lean toward different solutions - or in the case of climate, perhaps disagree with the others' definition of problem at all. They're certainly, at London Assembly level, the least pro-cycling of all the major parties by some distance.

@Tessmo

Think you've misunderstood - I'm not blaming local people for the problem - I'm saying that the school travel plans may themselves demand changes that are inconvenient for those who live on the roads concerned. Like rebuilding junctions or indeed closing certain roads to "through" traffic. Which means a longer round trip if you live on the "wrong" side of the closure from wherever you want to be.

[Villager]

Jennys Wrote:

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

> Villager Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Outside school holidays, this junction, and all

> > surrounding roads, are very quiet - even during

> > the rush hours, so being a technophile, I

> reckon

> > that technology has the answer.

> >

> > We already have average speed cameras that

> > identify cars with ANPR, so if there was a

> system

> > that clocked cars crossing the EDG/Townley

> > junction in two directions within 60 minutes,

> then

> > a charge could be levied so that the yummy

> mummies

> > with Chelsea tractors could be charged a

> premium

> > for dropping their kids off every day.

> >

>

>

>

> ..........................................................

>>> Great idea though I suspect you would also catch

>>> a few local people doing a weekly shop at

>>> Sainsburys.

............................................................

OK, make it 10 minutes then. That would catch all the drop-offs and if you can get to Sainsbo's, do your shop and get back in 10 mins then you are doing very well.

Villager

[Tessmo]

@ wolfhound

I don't think I've misunderstood. School travel plans cannot demand re-building junctions or road closures. What they can demand is that parents re-think the way they take their children to school.

[fazer71]

Yes it's about time the schools started helicopter flights into their sports fields.

Knuckle heads.!

After all that is what people with Chelsea tractors expect isn't it private jets and choppers to school?

Anyway to reality.

People need to get their kids to school ...

This thread is about a junction.

What are they going to do about the ?285k for making zero difference.

Gold plated buttons on the pedestrian crossing.

If it's not broken they will break it so they can fix it again.

The money merry-go-round.. Of our tax money.

[rch]

Bicknell, my understanding from past experience is that another option would have to go through another formal consultation process. This would almost certainly take too long and therefore put the scheme outside the funding deadline.

This is the logic behind why I posted the the draft scheme a few days back... if we lose the funding, then we can probably use devolved funding to address the pedestrian crossing issues that initiated the junction redesign campaign. If the ped crossing is speeded up by cost-effectively redesigning the islands, then this would in turn speed up the light phases which would address the tailbacks.

[Bicknell]

Thanks, Robin. Good there's another way of funding it.

Why didn't the council try to find out what people would support before they put forward the latest option? What a mess.

[BrandNewGuy]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> Thanks, Robin. Good there's another way of funding

> it.

Just to clarify - there are ways of funding imoprovements to the junction, but not for funding the current plans unless they have the TFL cash.

[Bicknell]

@BrandNewGuy So we could have a simpler, cheaper plan that makes the junction safer, and forget the TfL cash altogether?

[fazer71]

I've got IT

OPTION 11

A roundabout with raised platform Zebra crossings surrounding it.

See

Goose green roundabout similar layout similar traffic peaks etc

"only this one would be safer with the raised zebras" for school kids

should work well for buses cars cyclists mopeds choppers people with or without cats dogs prams skateboarders people with silly walks and aliens.

I really don't understand why there's any need for some special cyclist BS and traffic lights.

[Tessmo]

DEADLINE TODAY FRIDAY 13 MARCH FOR THE RE-CONSULTATION

Only 500 characters on the online form (http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/3729/townley_road_junction_scheme_re-consultation), which doesn't allow you to say much. For me, what's most important is that nothing is done that makes the junction less safe.

If you haven't replied already, this fits:

? the design is experimental. If the new cycling features don?t work, or make the junction less safe/less efficient, is there a budget to put them right?

? the pavement build-outs are too sharp. They will slow down long vehicles and make them swing out into pedestrian and cyclist paths

? one lane for Townley Road, with cars turning right stuck behind cars turning left, will cause tailbacks, increased air pollution, and congestion throughout the area

? the LinSig modelling must be checked