More details about Bikeability
0845 652 0421
And follow @cicom on Twitter
The consultation on Dingwall Road Loop tram extension is open.
There was a poorly attended consultation event at Croydon Central Library yesterday.
There will be another on Saturday 20 June, back at Croydon Central Library with the consultation closing on 28 June.
For full information, to download details and to complete the online survey, see https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tramlink/dingwall-road-loop-extension?cid=dingwall-road-loop
We are happy to post up responses to the consultation on Fiveways from anyone with a view on the matter.
Just email us at CroydonNeighbourhoods@gmail.com and we will upload your response.
The following response was provided by Peter Morgan.
I write to give a response to TfL’s consultation into TfL’s two alternative proposals for the two junctions of the A23 and A232 at Waddon station.
Please note that Fiveways is the junction of the A23 and B271 and B275 a short distance to the south. It includes the eastbound flow of the A232, but not its westbound flow.
1 TfL offers two options:
OPTION A – a new bridge to carry the A232 over the railway and over Stafford Road, joining the A232 Duppas Hill Road to the A232 Croydon Road at Purley Way.
This option includes slip roads down to and up from Stafford Road, although this is far from clear from the consultation material TfL have provided.
It also means replacing the current T-junction of the A23 and A232 at Purley Way / Croydon Road with a full cross-roads.
At present there is also an arm into the small industrial estate which includes MacDonalds. It is unclear what would happen to this development under OPTION A.
OPTION B – widening the A23 across the railway bridge between Croydon Road and Epsom Road, making Epsom Road itself two way, and diverting eastbound A232 traffic down Epsom Road instead of using Stafford Road.
This would involve major changes at the junction of Duppas Hill Road, Stafford Road and Epsom Road,, however there is no information at all as to how this might work.
2 There are two alternative options which should also be considered.
OPTION C – widening the A23 Purley Way between Croydon Road and Fiveways, by providing an extra lane in each direction throughout this section.
OPTION D – my suggestion of taking the westbound flow of the A232 in Epsom Road under the A23 alongside the railway, and then round left and back up onto the A23.
This would allow traffic flow on the A23 at Epsom Road to flow unimpeded.
3 The consultation is seriously harmed by the lack of detail of what TfL is proposing.
The public could understand if TfL’s proposals are not finalised, but what was and is needed is TfL’s current planned layouts, which can then be modified in the light of public comments.
This lack of detail has allowed some news media, for example that below to describe TfL’s plans as the creation of new urban motorways.
However TfL’s scheme is far from a pro-car urban motorway one, which delivers big benefits to motor vehicles.
Instead it is impossible to say if there would be any net benefits to users of motor vehicles.
What is clear is that TfL are proposing to create masses of new segregated cycle lanes, taking away road space from motor vehicles including for parking and for buses.
We know Mayor Boris is obsessed with cyclists ahead of all other road users including pedestrians, but it is unclear why we should spend £M on schemes that focus on new cycling features, but that in fact deliver little for cyclists, as well as for everyone else..
4 Consider OPTION A in detail
This is very difficult to analyse due to lack of information.
For example, the bridge appears to be planned to be 16m wide, with just a single lane for general traffic each way, taking 7m.
Then TfL propose to use less than 1m for the parapets, and the other 8m for a footpath each way and a segregated cycle lane each way.
We know there would be at least 50 motor vehicles for each pedestrian or cyclist, so this use of road space makes little sense.
DUPPAS HILL ROAD END OF BRIDGE
A Why not have a shared use footway and cycleway, and 2 lanes of general traffic each way?
There was no explanation to how pedestrians and cyclists would access the bridge at Duppas Hill Road.
B How would these vulnerable road users get across the busy slip roads to and from Stafford Road?
There is no easy answer, and a safe solution is essential – if we are to have these pedestrians and cycle routes across the new bridge.
Duppas Hill Road is currently about 6.5m wide, with footways alongside (south side only a short distance) about 1.5m wide, giving a total width of 10m or so.
The new slip roads would need each to be 4m wide, with a footway of 2m, ie 6m wide. This is to provide for cyclists and also a possible car breakdown not wholly blocking the road.
That means at the end of the bridge, Duppas Hill Road would be widened from 10m to 28m (16+6+6). This would be about 40 m up from Stafford Road, as the road on the bridge would be 5m above the road level at Stafford Road, and the slip road would be no steeper than 1 in 8.
The views offered also show a separate service road up to Glenn Gardens.
That would require at least an extra 9m (1+3+3+2) of land off the park, and you would have to taper this 9m as well.
This separate service road may look nice, but it means much more land take.
TfL said they were not proposing to widen Duppas Hill Road to two lanes in each direction up to the Croydon Flyover – a distance of 500m.
C This seems a clear mistake. If TfL are going to build this new bridge, you really must widen the road between it and the Croydon Flyover- otherwise you are creating a serious bottleneck.
If TfL do not intend to widen Duppas Hill Road throughout, there would still need to be a taper from the end of the new bridge back to the current narrow singe lane each way.
The Croydon Flyover has a severe taper, higher than one would choose, yet it is about 120m for a broadly equivalent situation.
Given the hill in DHR, you would want a longer taper.
Regardless, that means the taper would end at least 160m up DHR – before account is taken of the 9m for the service road.
This would mean the bottleneck section would be at most 340m.
D How about a footway on the south side of DHR – make it shared with cyclists?
A23 / A232 JUNCTION
There is no detail of how the A23 / A232 junction of Purley Way with Croydon Road and the new bridge would work.
This may be because it will not work under the current plans.
We are told that as much as 30% of traffic off the bridge will want to turn right onto the A23. This requires a separate right-turn lane at least 8 cars long.
E The view provided shows a single lane with no more 3 car lengths of two lanes – quite unworkable.
F It also does not show any way into the MacDonalds industrial estate – is this to be wiped out?
If not, why is no means of access shown?
G The view shows advanced stop cycle boxes – taking out vital capacity.
H There would be just a single lane to go straight ahead along the A232 – a recipe for long slow queues.
The current cycle time is at the maximum generally allowed of 2 minutes.
Purley Way north-south, Purley Way right into Croydon Road, and Croydon Road egress all need their current time.
There is a very short green for the industrial estate – so where is the time for the new bridge?
I The new A23 / A232 junction can only work with significant widening, and extra lanes on the A232 each side.
J If traffic is to be allowed to turn right onto the bridge – as TfL propose, that needs an extra lane on the A23 Waddon bridge northbound – not proposed.
K OPTION A offers no benefit to Fiveways northbound, and notably nothing for traffic to Croydon from Purley – a movement likely to increase.
L There is nothing here to encourage through traffic to use the A23 in preference to Pampisford Road.
It is for the above reasons that I say there is no reason to believe that the new bridge as currently planned would in fact deliver any net time savings to traffic through the junctions at Waddon / Fiveways.
5 Consider OPTION B in detail – widening the bridge and making Epsom Road two-way.
This is very difficult to analyse due to lack of information.
Widening the A23 across the railway would be a benefit.
However there are major issues as to how the new junction of the A23 with Epsom Road would work.
Currently pedestrians cross with flow, but that would no longer be possible.
At present, eastbound traffic from the A23 uses both lanes on the bridge, and sometimes can flow on towards Fiveways.
OPTION B would mean a short single lane queuing to turn left. It would be hard to synchronise this with traffic emerging from Epsom Road.
A There is no suggestion of how Epsom Road / Purley Way would work, and no reason to believe it would not be a source of serious congestion and delay.
B It is unclear how Waddon station access would operate for vehicles.
The new junction layout at Epsom Road / Stafford Road / DHR would be much bigger and more complicated.
There is no suggestion of how this might work.
C Again, there is a real danger of creating a new source of serious congestion and delay.
It is for the above reason that I say there is no reason to believe that making Epsom Road two way with some A23 widening as currently planned would in fact deliver any net time savings to traffic through the junctions at Waddon / Fiveways.
6 OPTION C – WIDENING THE A23 WITH AN EXTRA LANE BETWEEN CROYDON ROAD AND FIVEWAYS ITSELF.
This would be less substantial and probably less costly than either of TfL’s options.
It would deliver big benefits to traffic.
A However it would not offer segregated cycle lanes – is this why TfL rejected it – if not then why?
7 STAFFORD ROAD
TfL offer pretty pictures of Stafford Road between Epsom Road and Fiveways, with 4 cars, 4 bicycles, and 4 pedestrians in the main view.
They show wide footways – with unnecessary new paving, segregated cycle lanes, and a single lane for general traffic.
A This is pure fantasy.
Stafford Road westbound will be just as busy as now under either of TfL’s options.
Two lanes of general traffic are very much needed – scrap the bus lane which causes real and serious net damage – to buses as well as all other traffic.
There is no reason to expect a huge increase in pedestrian movement, or in cyclist movement, nor a huge reduction in motor vehicles.
The current view of Stafford Road ta Epsom Road shows the reality – lots of cars, a bus, a couple of pedestrians, and NO cyclists – and TfL’s camera enforcing the bus lane which net disadvantages buses as well as other traffic.
B The shopping parade near Epsom Road needs car parking, not a segregated cycle lane blocking access between cars and shops.
C What about the bus stops – shown in the current photo, but missing from the new view?
8 TAKE EPSOM ROAD UNDER PURLEY WAY
I have offered an alternative OPTION D, which is perfectly feasible, with cost comparable with TfL’s options.
This would take westbound traffic in Epsom Road under Purley Way, and then left back onto the bridge.
This avoids the right run onto Purley Way, and as noted above allows Purley Way to flow unimpeded – pedestrians cross the A23 using the road bridge.
This option is surely worth further consideration.
9 FIVEWAYS ITSELF
TfL say they plan to improve Fiveways, a source of major congestion and delay.
However, despite its name, there is nothing proposed in this consultation to address problems at Fiveways.
All we here is vague hopes of improving routes for and safety of pedestrians. There is nothing wrong with this as such, but there is no quantification of current issues – and nothing said as to how this might be achieved. Current routes are fairly simple and perfectly safe – bar red man lights showing when it is safe to cross.
The right turn from the A23 northbound towards the A232 to Croydon is a major issue, and more traffic is expected to follow that route with Westfield.
TfL’s plans offer nothing here, but my OPTION D would provide a good alternative route for this traffic.
TfL have spent too much time thinking how can we introduce new cycle lanes, and taken their eye off the ball.
Even the TfL traffic engineer admitted these proposals are a huge amount of money to deliver very little in terms of traffic benefit.
If you want the big bridge option A, then you need to do it properly, with two lanes of traffic (3 approaching the A23(, and a full two lanes up DHR to the Flyover – why not three between the two sets of slip roads?
Thanks to everyone who attended our meeting in South Croydon and to the organisations and individuals who helped us advertise the event.
Notes of Meeting
The initial notices from the meeting can be found here.
The notes of meeting were agreed by the police officers and the reps from TfL, then circulated to those attending.
You can access them here: Notes of St Augustines 250215.
Next public meeting
Our next public meeting is in South Norwood in April.
Our meetings are generally without set agenda but we are inviting subjects for discussion to be put forward so please post a comment or email us if there is an agenda item you’d like to see.
We are inviting anyone to post questions they would like tabled on the evening on the post on our website. Questions from those present on the evening will be given priority if time is limited.
Alternatively you can email us at CroydonNeighbourhoods@gmail.com or phone/text 07864 676 088.
Booking a place assists in speeding up registration on the night and helps us to cater for numbers.
We’d appreciate it if you would help spread the word about our meetings.
Book a free place for our meetings on Eventbrite: http://croydoncc.eventbrite.co.uk/