Rockets

I see Court Lane seems to be being resurfaced today - is this in preparation for the grand re-opening.....;-)

Looks like there is a photo op taking place in Margy Square. There is a photographer there and a load of cyclists passed us one of whom was carrying a large More Safe Routes flag.

Not that, but I did hear that Court Lane was going to be made one-way as the council was acknowledging that there were problems being caused by the throttling of east/west routes by the closures. Maybe the two are linked?

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never come across this being a problem in > Southwark. Planning regulations can vary and you > can imagine there being issues in, for instance, a > conservation area. But I would argue for a lenient > approach given the need to encourage cycling. > > Best wishes > James James, good stuff. Many thanks for your quick reply.

Cllr McAsh, whilst we wait to see whether we get a hangar what is the council's policy towards cycle storage units in front gardens? I saw a report on the BBC that Islington were telling householders to remove Asgard (and other similar bike storage structures) from front gardens as such "out buildings" were not permitted beyond back gardens. As someone who does not have a side return I have ordered an Asgard cycle storage unit for our small front garden. Does Southwark permit such units? The unit complies to all permitted development thresholds (but apparently so do the ones that councils like Islington seem to have a problem with when people out them into front gardens).

Talking about things dropping through your door that annoy people. This dropped through our door today and it absolutely incensed my wife for its blinkeredness (and she hasn't been easily riled by the LTNs). She met a friend today who had also received it and she also found it infuriating and had followed the link to the CleanAIrDulwich twitter feed as she wanted to comment only to find that the comments are locked to prevent people from leaving any feedback (I am sure CleanAirDulwich would say to prevent trolls but many interpret it as they get more people disagreeing with them than agreeing and so it helps to manage the narrative). Of course we all want "More of this" and no-one wants to go "Back to this" but if "More of This" means other people have to endure "More of that" then that doesn't seem right or fair. This is what so annoys people - this "well we're all right Jack" attitude and blind ignorance to what is happening as a result of these changes.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But DC - many people are not yet back to their > > offices or places of work either so if there is > > increased congestion now it is not unreasonable > to > > suggest that it will only get worse. > > > I thought all the traffic is key workers, carers > and people making essential journeys? Thats the > rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people > driving. Can't have it both ways ;) Er DC....the rules have changed a bit since the beginning of lockdown on essential journeys...shops are open, people aren't restricted on where they travel to and from etc etc...what's happening is what many of us predicted would happen...;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are more cars on the roads because people > still aren't using public transport. > > If increased public transport is, as is often > stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then > it follows that the current *reduction* of public > transport usage is having a negative impact and > the actual results of experimental low-traffic > measures can't be properly assessed until public > transport is running at pre-pandemic levels. But DC - many people are not yet back to their offices or places of work either so if there is increased congestion now it is not unreasonable to suggest that it will only get worse. You could also say that given these measures have been in for a long time and traffic is still as bad as it was when they first went in then they are not having the impact needed and should be removed. BTW I notice that Underhill Road now has a lot of monitoring strips in at various points.

Rahx3 - apologies, I wasn't accusing you of focussing just on cars - it was more of a general observation. The war-on-cars seems to be waged by (self) interest groups and councils (who give too much weight to said (self) nterest groups) whilst seemingly deliberately ignoring the macro issues - probably no doubt because they have gas fired boilers etc! ;-)

Ex- and Ab - let's hope whatever they are doing is done quickly. Any time there is a problem on the A205 it makes the LTN impact 10 times worse. I was on my run this morning up past Dulwich College as well when I saw the temporary lights (and the horrible queue back past the college - even though it was 6.30am!)

I see the A205 has roadworks which is causing yet more chaos around the Dulwich area - has the watermain gone again?

Rahx3 - the report you link to demonstrates how you cannot narrow the focus to just cars and that the problem is far greater than that - and actually those that do focus solely on cars probably do so due to their own confirmation bias (and I do include TFL in that). Look at what the report says: Firstly..... Research has shown that around 75 per cent of particulate matter pollution in Greater London is estimated to come from outside the city. And then the graphs show that in terms of NO2 and PM3. Look at NO2: Road Transport - 50% But within 50% that the worst offender is the diesel car with 24% After that the TFL bus fleet is the next largest contributor at 20% Then Rigid HGVs at 15% Van and mini bus 12% Petrol car 12% Outside of the 50% for road transport... Domestic Gas - 12% Commercial gas -8% Industry 7% So the continued use of domestic gas is as damaging as the use of the petrol car. And then when you look at PM3 sources: 53% comes from road transport.... ..of which taxis are the biggest contributor - 26% Van and mini bus - 17% Diesel car and petrol car on 14% each TFL bus fleet - 13% etc etc.... So you can see that we need to tackle this holistically and need to stop making it a war against the car as it is far bigger than that and the way councils, and the lobby groups, try to focus solely on private car use is a folly and actually diverts attention from the wider issues. And maybe, just maybe, for groups like TFL focusing on the car deflects attention away from their role in the problems as those charts show (and I appreciate they are from 2013) that TFL has oversight on a big part of the problem - the bus fleet and taxis. If we don't approach this with a clear-eye view of everything going on (domestic gas use, transport etc etc) you will never crack the problem.

Yes we are hoping we get one in the next wave of installs! It's been a good four or five year wait for us so let's hope we win the lottery this time! ;-)

If you don't want your slightly too small bike hangars we'll have them on our road we've been asking for them for years.....#bethankfulyouhaveone ;-)

Also, ensure you don't focus this solely on the car. Yes cars need addressing but there are many of here who blindly obsess about the cars' negative impact - often motivated by their own obsession with two-wheeled modes of transport! ;-) Cars account for 18% of emissions so there is a whopping 82% of emission sources that often get overlooked. I am glad you are looking at wood burning stoves etc but you need to take it further. You need to be discussing how each individual needs to assess their own impact beyond the car and wood-burner cause celebres. Often what happens is that those who have dumped the car, or don't (for example) use a wood burning stove, are happy to castigate those that do and it narrows the debate too much towards those areas of transgression. Broaden the debate about creating a consciousness around the continued use of fossil-fuel boilers or the reliance on products made on the other side of the world and shipped on huge cargo ships that in one journey pollute more than all of the cars in a single country.

I agree that sunny days wandering through quiet streets are lovely and days like the sunny weekend they really come into their own. I was walking through the DV junction during the wet days preceding the sunny weather and there wasn't a soul in sight. Now the schools are back, even on a sunny day like today, there are, outside the school drop-off and pick-up time, very few people around - very few cyclists, very few pedestrians. So, the question you have to ask yourself is whether the devastation being felt outside of the LTN areas is worth it for those idyllic moments and I am not sure it is, because every time I enjoy Dulwich Village I am torn because I know and understand what is happening to Lordship Lane (for example). If there is a magical way to create that feeling across the whole of Dulwich then sign me up but I have yet to see any suggestions that don't create a nirvana for some and a living hell for others. P.S. Whilst walking (and choking) down Lordship Lane at the weekend I noticed that some of the idiotic wing of the pro-LTN lobby have taken a leaf out of the idiotic wing of the anti-LTN lobby by graffitiing "love LTN" signs (LTN within a heart shape) at a few locations on Lordship Lane.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not accusing everyone who has issues with the > current LTN as wanting to maintain the status quo. > But One Dulwich as an organisation are literally > campaigning to ?return things to how they were?. > This is what is so disappointing Rahx3 - but they have no option. Your ire should actually be aimed at the council for organising such a manipulative review. To be fair, if more of the pro-LTN lobby had stood-up and reviewed what was happening objectively then we would not be where we are but many were happy to go along with the council's lopsided and biased implementation of these measures. Surely you can acknowledge that the review is skewed massively towards getting the result the council wants and is not at all balanced?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I completely understand why OneDulwich would > take > > this approach to try and bring the Council to > the > > table. It's an approach that forces the > Council > > to recognise the consolidated opposition to the > > current scheme, rather than enabling it to > > fragment that opposition into support for > various > > different measures > > Is it possible that there isn?t a consensus for > measures that support active travel and discourage > car use amongst ?One Dulwich? supporters? It?s > easy to get support for ?keep things as they are?. > Much harder to actually rally people around an > alternative. That isn?t likely to change once the > current schemes are removed. It?s a manifesto of > inaction. Rahx3 - I am sorry you are completely wrong on this. If the council had agreed to publish an alternative then I am sure One Dulwich would have been happy to urge supporters to vote for that alternative. Of course, no such offer was forthcoming from the council and all we are left with is an inadequate review that, from the moment of its inception, was designed to try and give the council a mandate to continue this disastrous experiment. Unfortunately for the council, people are not stupid. I am sure many were like me and viewed the review documents and thought I am not going to tick "install a different type of measure" when the council is giving me no indication what that measure is likely to be. I don't trust the council enough (given their recent track record) to give them that authority and mandate. It is what many of us on here have been warning you about - that the council's mismanagement and deliberate attempts at manipulating the process to their advantage risked backfiring and setting back the climate change debate by years. And so here we are - lots of people are having to vote for returning to things as they were because the council is not giving them any alternative. You can't say we didn't warn you.....

Rahx3 - yes you can leave comments for suggestions but that has no impact on the results. The council has, by their design of the review document, left people with no option other than to register their disapproval of the measure by selecting return them to their original state. No one wants to have to do this but they are being shoehorned into doing so by the badly (probably deliberately so) designed review documents. We have been here before and the council basically pays lip service to the comments and suggestions left and focuses the results on how people registered their thoughts by the options presented. I don't want the measures removed completely but that is the only way many can effect any change thanks to the council and their attempt to manipulate the review.

Completely agree - the lunatic fringes of both sides need to stop being idiots - whomever is vandalising the planters needs to stop, whomever is tearing down the anti-LTN signs needs to stop. It's a bit like when someone started cutting the monitoring strips - I really question what their intention is and whether they actually considered what they were doing. A time for a few to engage brain before action.

And Rahx3 - to be fair it was the council's previous interventions that made the DV/Court Lane junction the mess you show in your tweet - I am not trying to say it was perfect before but the alterations they made increased pollution and congestion and also made the junction a lot less safe for all users of it.

Does anyone know what Southwark's rules on bike sheds are? Can you build an "out-building" in your front garden without issue? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57159538

The review document is a joke, it's shameful in its brazenness - designed not to gauge local opinion but to prove the success of the project. It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are saying they are left with no option but to suggest that everything returns to normal. This council is totally out of control and is clearly manipulating the review and the review process..but did we expect anything else from them?

Latest update from One Dulwich. Dear all, Dulwich Review survey ? deadline 11 July Since our last update, we have joined with other groups in the Dulwich Alliance to make a formal complaint to Southwark Council about the many and serious failings of the Dulwich Review survey. You can read our complaint here. We are also sending out a leaflet from this weekend recommending that you choose ?Return to the original state? on the questions in the survey asking about the road measures themselves. You may find this surprising, given that we have throughout been pushing for ANPR timed restrictions as a reasonable alternative to 24/7 closures. But this survey ? despite reassurances from Southwark in February ? doesn?t offer this as an option for Dulwich Village junction (even though the 24/7 closure here is the cause of area-wide traffic displacement). No alternative measures (not even dedicated cycle lanes or school streets) are offered for any of the locations. Overall, the survey is so flawed, and so biased, that we believe choosing complete removal of all the measures is the only way to get the Council to listen to the local community and understand the valid reasons behind our objections. You can read our reasons for supporting this position by going to www.dulwichalliance.org/SurveyFAQs. Majority of Court Lane doesn?t want 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction One of the roads most directly affected by the closure of Dulwich Village junction is Court Lane. The residents? association has recently carried out a survey of the 189 households in Court Lane and Court Lane Gardens. In total, 155 households (81%) took part, with 34 households (19%) choosing not to respond. Of the 155 households that responded, 25 made no clear choices; but of the 130 households that did make clear choices 73% want to see the junction open (64% with timed restrictions and 9% with no restrictions at all), and 27% want the junction permanently closed.

Loads of green signs going up everywhere - looks like some folk aren't taking too kindly to them. Nothing like a visual reminder of those who form the, ahem, small vocal minority...