new crossing?

[louisiana]

I know there has been some debate about a new crossing down LL opposite Somerfields, but here up in the Upper SE Side we seem to be getting a new crossing. To replace the one we used to have way back when. Or at least that seems to be the indication from the workmen who are currently laying the paving... (junction LL and Dunstan's Road) Or am I wrong?

[Burbage]

In other crossing news, TfL admitted on Monday that they'll be upgrading the Grove Junction* to give pedestrians a fighting chance 'early next [financial] year'.

It doesn't really count as a new crossing, but it's the best news I've had all week, so I thought I'd share.

*The A205/Lordship Lane/Dulwich Common junction by what is, for the moment, a Harvester.

[SimonM]

Oh and about time too!!!!

[Burbage]

Sorry. I wrote too hastily.

However, with the creaking circularity that afflicts such issues, the junction has recently crept back on to the political agenda, judging by a postcard the local Labour Group recently donated to my mat. I gather that there's an active, if invisible, group of local residents involved, and politicians are being positively competitive in the vigour with which they're telling people how hard they're campaigning for something to be done.

And something must have happened, because an FOI request made by a close resident reaped not only a copy of the 2008 plans for the junction, but this proffered crumb of freshish hope:

"....following discussions with stakeholders [unnamed, possibly councillors] this junction has been included in the programme for investigation during the current financial year. We are examining the pedestrian demand, the collision record, and looking again at pedestrian crossing options and potential improvements to the overall operation of the junction. The outcome of the work should then inform the current feasibility and justification for adding pedestrian crossings. This work is expected to be completed during the autumn and early winter and to have reached a conclusion by the end of the year."

It's not quite as forthrightly positive as the last promise from TfL on the matter, which turned out sadly frangible, but it's marginally better than nothing.

It is more confusing, though. Back in 2008 - just after the mayoral election - they put together a couple of models for the junction - the details of which TfL have now, thanks to the FOI request, sort-of published (though with copyright restrictions, so we can't share it). One of these options was 'acceptable' in terms of the "degree of saturation", and that option was a "walk with traffic staggered crossing across the Dulwich Common arm only", which seems to mean a cage for pedestrians in the middle of Dulwich Common, and the removal of the left-filter arrow on the Northbound London Road, presumably to rebalance the odds. Not great, but arguably better than death, and with the benefit of funding.

Sadly, it wasn't 'progressed'. According to TfL's revisionists, the official reason is now:

"In 2010 [i.e. at least eighteen months after they'd got a recommended option and a good year after they got the funding] we reviewed the scheme and concluded that it would have a negative impact on the performance of the road network in this area of London. It was identified that progressing the scheme to implementation would require additional measures to mitigate this impact, which could potentially add to the cost to implement the scheme. We also considered the collision savings that would be made by providing a pedestrian crossing stage, comparing the current level of collisions at the junction with the average across the London Borough of Southwark. We found that over the previous three years, there had been fewer collisions at the junction compared to the Borough average."

In other words, despite what they claimed in 2009, they didn't do any safety audit at all, having predicted correctly that a fresh look in the following year would reveal that not enough people died expensively enough to make it worth their while to spend the money they'd already taken from us to implement the plans we'd already paid for. What they're considering now is thus anybody's guess (and councillors are oddly tight-lipped about what they're actually campaigning for in any detail). But from where I sit there's not a handcart in heaven's chance they're going to find a less 'negative' impact on 'performance' this time round, or that 'mitigating' measures will have plummeted in price. Unless, of course, the fits of confusion they seem to have suffered are the outfall of TfL's mendacity rather than incompetence. But, being a generous soul, I have to pretend to be struggling to think of a motive.

Besides, whatever the numbers do turn out, we'll always be hoisted by the malicious argument that if a junction's too scary to cross, pedestrian demand and collision rates will remain at 'acceptable' levels, whereas making the junction safer would only attract more pedestrians, increasing the probability of casualties and making it less safe.

There are two things we can do from here. The first is probably a non-starter. Despite the economic climate, I doubt there'll be enough residents sufficiently tired of life to willingly boost the collision numbers, and although councillors seem eager to lend their support to the cause in some ways, their commitment and ambition have subtly different limits.

The second option is a demonstration of 'pedestrian demand'. I'm not sure how best that's done, save badgering councillors and assembly members and Tfl itself, and given the success I've had in five years of intermittently grumpy exchanges, I can't honestly endorse it as a strategy. Perhaps we need a flashgrumble.

There is a third option, and that's to wait until the rumours turn out true, Tesco moves into the Grove and the junction has to be remodelled as a result. But that may take more time than the next dead soul might have.

Any thoughts, or memos I might have missed?

[hertburs]

The crossing at the junction of Lordship Lane and the South Circular at The Grove is an absolute nightmare for both pedestrians and cyclists. Although there are traffic lights, there is no provision for pedestrians heading down to Lordship Lane from the Forest Hill direction. Because of the position of the bus lane further up the hill, cars swing into the left hand lane just before the traffic lights to follow the S Circular round on a filter light. This traffic moves fast and gives very little time for pedestrians to cross to the island in the middle in safety. The answer is to provide pedestrian lights at this junction to give people some kind of chance to get across safely. At the moment there appears to be no time at which all the traffic lights are red to allow people to cross straight over towards what was The Grove / Harvester restaurant and the on down into E Dulwich. Surely we don't have to wait for whatever is going to happen to this site for this problem to be solved!

[mynamehere]

Contact the councillors for that Ward and then they'll contact the traffic planners and then... I feel a bit bad as the whole lot just convened to discuss the junction of Lordship Land and Upland Rd. The crossing you're talking about came up and heads were shaken in sorrow and acknowledgement. Eventually 2015? everything will be 20mph including that intersection. It all leaves open the question why people paid to do a job (traffic engineers, planners etc) cannot see the nose on their face. I can easily remember this intersection being rebuilt and the astonishment to realise that pedestrians had not been accommodated to keep it simple for drivers.

[James Barber]

Hi mynamehere,

The Lrodship Lane, South Circular junction has had several traffic engineer designs. But to add pedestrian phasing will reduce its capacity for motor vehicles so Boris's policies hasnt allowed it to be implimented.

Catch 22 in that not enough pedestrians have been injured or killed to force the issue but its so bad most avoid trying to cross there.

[Penguin68]

The complexity of this junction (and the fact that it serves the nominal orbit route of the South Circular) would suggest that pedestrian crossing(s) be (1) offset from the juntion and (2) run as e.g. a pelican style crossing (working 'on demand' only).

Although this would make the pedestrian route longer (for those approaching the crossing from the 'wrong' directions) it would offer safe crossing away from a complex traffic juntion and have less impact on traffic through rates. A crossing at (broadly) the Melford Road Junction (perhaps closing off the Overhill Crossing) would offer a reasonable crossing place closer to the junction whilst still serving the same populations as use the existing Overhill crossing. There are already lights on the other sider of the junction (past Underhill).

[Burbage]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The complexity of this junction (and the fact that

> it serves the nominal orbit route of the South

> Circular) would suggest that pedestrian

> crossing(s) be (1) offset from the juntion and (2)

> run as e.g. a pelican style crossing (working 'on

> demand' only).

It's less complex than the Plough, having one less arm and a full-time filter instead of a part-time one. It's a lot less complex than the Sydenham Hill junction, which not only carries the all-important orbital nonsense, but also includes a full menu of cycle crossings, bus lanes, pedestrian islands, push-buttons and pointless paintwork, all without bringing London to the creaking standstill that TfL's hired scaremongers would have you believe. As for the existing pedestrian-controlled crossings at Overhill and the cadet containment, they're in those places for good reasons, and both involve at least a quarter-mile detour (near half a mile if you're silly enough to want to get from, say, Duke's Court to Cox's Walk).

Ornithological crossings have, as far as I know, never been on the table for the junction itself. The proposals so far have just involved tweaking the lights to allow a 'pedestrian phase' (or gap in the traffic), repainting the suicide lanes and installing central pens so pedestrians aren't left clinging to lampposts when they get stuck in the middle. Nothing too complicated or revolutionary, well within the junction capacity according to TfL's own figures, already designed and funded for implementation.

They just refused to do it, and have so far refused to give either a coherent reason why or an explanation of where the money went.

The addition of pedestrian-controlled signals shouldn't be impossible. As you point out, there are already pedestrian signals further up on two of the arms, and if TfL's claims re: the Dunstan's/Forest Hill Road junction saga are true, there's a natty SCOOT system for synchronising signals to negate any effect on traffic flows. But funding would be a problem and while too few of us are dead enough to justify the money, I don't think TfL would go for it. Though they might pretend to if they think it'll buy them a few more indolent years.

[hertburs]

I agree completely Burbage. If the system can work at The Sydenham Hill junction near to the Horniman then I fail to see what the problem is in doing something similar at The Grove junction. The need is if anything even greater as traffic heading North down the S Circular is travelling fast downhill and swings into the left hand turn lane just below Highwood Close when the bus lane finishes. You really do take your life in your hands trying to cross at this junction. It seems that absolute priority is given to vehicular traffic with no regard at all for the needs of pedestrians. Don't we deserve at least some consideration?

[KidKruger]

Will need to be sorted out especially if the new business (I hear it's McDonalds) attracts lots of pedestrians.

[Sue]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Will need to be sorted out especially if the new

> business (I hear it's McDonalds) attracts lots of

> pedestrians.

xxxxx

McDonalds?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Where did you hear that, KK??

[Burbage]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Will need to be sorted out especially if the new

> business (I hear it's McDonalds) attracts lots of

> pedestrians.

It wasn't an issue when the site was a pub, or a Harvester or a mini-recycling centre, and I doubt they'll change the rules for the franchise of a lawyer-heavy multinationa. Admittedly, the junction was regularly and reliably disrupted by traffic to and from the Grove site, but it seems delays caused by cars count as a tolerable uses of amenities rather than selfish attacks on the very foundations of our economy.