Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

It's hard to decide whether the final design of the new junction will be better or worse for cyclists and pedestrians because the lights still aren't right, and the new cycling features are still missing. From what I've heard, this is all down to TfL. Why the delay? Isn't safety at this junction important?
  • 2 weeks later...

QueenMab Wrote:

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

> Well I've been taking my son to school via that

> junction every day for the last year and a half

> and they have been there every day...!



I've been purposefully looking out for lollipop man / woman the last couple of weeks and not seen one between 3.10 and 3.20 ...just the charter students...maybe s/he comes later?

I don't think it is meant to be a primary aged service but rather up to the authority to determine need


As a parent I would imagine the need is greater for the final years of primary and the first years of secondary when children are more likely to be crossing unaccompanied


I still find this junction one of the most dangerous to cross as a pedestrian and to drive through

  • 5 months later...

Did I miss a comment on the appallingly tight left hand turn from townley into east dulwuch grove ...the one that has cars and coaches swinging out into the path of oncoming traffic?


Is that not an area of safety concern at all?


Edit ..oh I see it ...it is supposedly not an issue, in the right place and due to positioning of cars on approach to junction and it is all ok


In reality it is so far from being ok it is laughable

  • 3 weeks later...

waking this thread up


I seem to remember that there were some additions to this junction for cycle safety that were to be put in once TFL granted approval.

Do I remember that right.


My view of the 200k spent on this junction: its made it a more pleasant pedestrian experience, and could have increased safety on that front (although those coaches mounting the pavement every day may counter that)



As far as cyclist safety (which was one of the big drivers and heavily debated) - nada. I still regularly see traffic turning into the path of cyclists coming from Greendale direction.

Is there any indication that Aecom actually drove through the junction at all? I fail to see how anyone turning left at this junction could believe it is a well-planned turn.


Also, there is no real reason why this shouldn't be two lanes at the end, enabling cars turning right not to block the predominant flow of traffic turning left. Finally there is probably one too many crossings - the one between the junction and the zebra crossing is probably unnecessary.


Google streetview still shows this junction prior to Southwark's balls-up...


And if you go further back on Streetview, you can still see when the primary route went along Calton Avenue.


DadOf4 Wrote:


> As far as cyclist safety (which was one of the big

> drivers and heavily debated) - nada. I still

> regularly see traffic turning into the path of

> cyclists coming from Greendale direction.


I regularly cross this junction from Greendale to Townley Road and I must say the "cycle only" light on Greendale is a great help for safety, enabling me to get across the junction before the Townley Road traffic is released. The one thing I would say is that the hold isn't long enough, unless one's really on the ball, in the right gear and quite strong the right turning traffic is released before one can get across, a few more seconds' delay would make a notable difference.

Went that way this morning in the rush hour - the entire 3 seconds of cycle green light exiting Townley, there were cars turning R from EDG to Townley blocking the junction. Eight or ten cyclists with a green light and nowhere to go. Outside the rush hour it's not nearly so bad.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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