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

[mr smith]

I've just driven past Townley road and traffic is queuing back past Dulwich hospital to Melbourne Grove. I was caught in this tailback for 10 minutes going the other way earlier this morning.

Would I be right in thinking that Southwark council have spent tens of thousands of pounds turning a perfectly reasonable junction into a traffic black spot?

[simonethebeaver]

I think the lights are broken at the Court Lane/Townley Road junction. I'm surprised it's still going on as it was happening before 10am.

I wonder if there is some bigger problem there as yesterday five cars jumped the red light coming from Turney Road, including someone on a driving lesson. So perhaps the lights were playing up then? It needs sorting out immediately as that junction is already an accident waiting to happen. This morning people had to just drive through red lights.

[slarti b]

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.

[bawdy-nan]

rode that junction with my 10 year old coming from Calton to Townley via the new cycle path the exit of which some knobber had parked across with their car. I do hope this wasn't some manly small minded "protest".

[fazer71]

It wasn't broken now it is.

If we want to make the roads safe for cyclists then wherever possible roads should be made one-way for cars and the other lane should be two-way for cyclists.

That's a radical cheap solution which would actually work make the roads safer and get people on two wheels and away from cars. Townley road could be made one-way from lordship lane to edg that would cause

It's only a matter of time before that happens best to stop wasting money on other useless changes.

[Penguin68]

If we want to make the roads safe for cyclists then wherever possible roads should be made one-way for cars and the other lane should be two-way for cyclists.

Actually, the safest thing we could do for cyclists is probably to stop driving diesel vehicles given the long-term damage to lungs and breathing that particulates cause - and to keep our children off cycles in London roads until that happens. Care can avoid accidents, but you can't stop people breathing in when they cycle. Cycling is not the healthy option.

And making all roads one-way for cars (and lorries and buses and vans and coaches and motor bikes, let's not forget) would add massively to journey times and increase particulate and NOx pollution. Which wouldn't be doing cyclists (or pedestrians, or people just sitting around in their houses) any favours at all.

[Curmudgeon]

I drive this junction every day

I turn left from Townley into EDG and right from EDG into Townley

The right filter isn't operational, I've seen some scarily stupid moves

The left hand turn is stupidly sharp and I've seen countless people, not just coaches, swing out into the left hand lane

The diagonal pedestrian is really not obvious to traffic, so unless you are aware it is there it can be a surprise when people walk across...this wouldn't be an issue if so many people didn't virtually ignore the amber light as a signal to stop and not speed up

I think pedestrians crossing are in more danger from the stupid manoeuvres I've seen as a result of both of these issues ...I've certainly been slightly nervous for some of the Charter students as they try to negotiate the traffic

I have no idea how the situation has improved for those cyclists turning right into EDG from Townley

I would like to see a proper safety study and analysis of the effectiveness carried out

[Zebedee Tring]

Several of us, on the EDF and by email, warned Southwark officers and councillors that the remodelling of the junction would prove to be a total cock up and would make things more dangerous. But did they listen? No, we were just nimbies and agitators who thought that we knew better than them, in spite of having amongst our number several people with professional and/or experience as cyclists.

[Tessmo]

@curmudgeon An independent safety study of the junction the way it is now is in existence. It questions the sharp turn from Townley to EDG. But the study hasn't yet been released by Southwark.

There is still a delay on linking the lights to all the other junctions, and in adding the cycle features. It will probably be November before all this happens.

As @Zebedee Tring says, it's sad that Southwark didn't listen to concerns about the sharp turn from Townley to EDG before they built it.

It's also not ideal to have the junction lights and cycle features only half-finished for three months.

[BrandNewGuy]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> rode that junction with my 10 year old coming from

> Calton to Townley via the new cycle path the exit

> of which some knobber had parked across with their

> car. I do hope this wasn't some manly small minded

> "protest".

And your evidence for that is what?

[wulfhound]

Actually, the safest thing we could do for cyclists is probably to stop driving diesel vehicles given the long-term damage to lungs and breathing that particulates cause - and to keep our children off cycles in London roads until that happens. Care can avoid accidents, but you can't stop people breathing in when they cycle. Cycling is not the healthy option.

Are you saying people shouldn't walk, too?

Or, er, ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746925/Why-suffer-pollution-driving-car-walking-street.html

(Am reminded, on a tangent, of the NRA - "We need to prevent school shootings - let's make sure all the good guys are armed to the teeth too!")

And making all roads one-way for cars (and lorries and buses and vans and coaches and motor bikes, let's not forget) would add massively to journey times and increase particulate and NOx pollution. Which wouldn't be doing cyclists (or pedestrians, or people just sitting around in their houses) any favours at all.

For any of this stuff to work depends on behaviour change. Which some view as social engineering - but, oddly, the building of new motorways (which gives the appearance, if not always the reality, of increasing choice) is never characterised as such.

Increasing road capacity? Traffic engineering. Legitimate in intent, if not in implementation.

Decreasing road capacity? Social engineering, USSR-style.

[Zebedee Tring]

Extract from item on Townley/EDG junction works in latest edition of Dulwich Society eNews:

"... there is agreement that the situation for pedestrians is much improved."

What agreement? Who exactly has agreed this?

[bawdy-nan]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rode that junction with my 10 year old coming

> from

> > Calton to Townley via the new cycle path the

> exit

> > of which some knobber had parked across with

> their

> > car. I do hope this wasn't some manly small

> minded

> > "protest".

>

> And your evidence for that is what?

No evidence other than a car was parked across the exit from the cycle path thereby blocking it - so, yes it was there.

The motivation for doing it? Who knows? I hope it wasn't deliberate. At best it was inconsiderate. Manly it wasn't. But then I meant "meanly".

[BrandNewGuy]

I didn't say it wasn't there. I just queried why your only possible explanation was that it might have been some sort of protest. For which you have no evidence.

[bawdy-nan]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> I didn't say it wasn't there. I just queried why

> your only possible explanation was that it might

> have been some sort of protest. For which you have

> no evidence.

erm - I didn't say it was that I said I hoped it wasn't

[Tessmo]

The independent safety audit of the junction as it is now still hasn't been released by Southwark. This seems very strange.

[James Barber]

Hi Tessmo,

I've asked for copy of latest safety audit. I will share anything I receive here.

[slarti b]

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?

[James Barber]

Hi slarti b,

I'm pretty sure one was shown to me but I didn't keep a copy. My family can only stand so many council documents around the house!

Hi Tessmo,

I've been told the final touches to the document process are nearly completed and expect to release it end of next week.

[holymoly]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi slarti b,

> I'm pretty sure one was shown to me but I didn't

> keep a copy. My family can only stand so many

> council documents around the house!

>

James - see email sent to you and all Councillors

From: R...., I

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:39 PM

For other Forum members, I attach the Southwark response to the Stage 1/2 Audit. The audit itself is too large to load here but it is included in the email that was sent out to Councillors. The document attached here includes the issues that the Audit identified and Southwark's response to those issues.

A stage 3 audit is due on works completion but because they are not complete, an independent interim report has been produced as noted above but it has not yet been released to Councillors. A Village Cllr asked Southwark two weeks ago for this to be sent out to residents and is chasing early release.

[edhistory]

Does Ian Batcock work here: http://www.supplyhertfordshire.uk/ ?

[Tessmo]

Thank you, James Barber, for chasing the interim safety audit. I wonder about the delay, though. What 'finishing touches' do Southwark officers need to make to a report on junction safety written by an independent assessor?

[ed_pete]

Anyone know when JAGS are due to start work on their new Theatre ? I can't imagine the construction traffic helping the situation at all.

[edhistory]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Anyone know when JAGS are due to start work on

> their new Theatre ? I can't imagine the

> construction traffic helping the situation at all.

Already started.

New building footprint will reduce on-site parking spaces.

John K

[edhistory]

Tessmo Wrote:

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

> Thank you, James Barber, for chasing the interim

> safety audit. I wonder about the delay, though.

> What 'finishing touches' do Southwark officers

> need to make to a report on junction safety

> written by an independent assessor?

Do you mean Ian Batcock?