Rockets

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts > underline what I thought - for the vast majority > of people on this thread, there's far more that > we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking > it helps the extremes on either side (and/or > Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each > other as if the only solution was to reverse the > closures entirely or keep them entirely. > > So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures > in place for six months but with a proper > monitoring and assessment process that looks at > the overall impact on our area and a firm > commitment to consider outcomes for all roads > fairly at the end of it. Do you think those > strongly in favour of the closures would buy into > that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than > the immediate reversal of the closures, but the > only way to get the Council to commit to that is > for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get > behind that sort of idea. I think most people could get behind an approach that provides fair and granular data so an objective decision could be made on whether they are effective or not. The council should have been doing this from day 1 but remember they initially only put monitoring strips on the closed roads in the DV closures and were doing nothing to monitor traffic on the displacement roads. Many of us were, rightly, suspicious of why they were doing this. If we all agreed on the monitoring approach there would have to be transparency from the council as to where they are monitoring. They put some in on the southern part of Lordship Lane some months after the DV closures went in - I am not sure if they are still in or not - but not sure where else they have gone. For example, have they been monitoring Underhill Road for example?

Dulwichgirl82 I agree. In fact, I think there is far more justification for the Melbourne Grove closures as that would qualify as a rat run. By far the biggest impact on the wider area has been the closures of the DV junction (and now beyond DV). The blocking of east/west routes has created a displacement tsunami that is impacting many thousands of people - from those who choose to shop on Lordship Lane, to those who live on Lordship Lane and along any one of the routes being used by traffic to avoid the congestion caused by it. If I was a Melbourne Grove closure supporter I would be very worried that the council's mismanagement and blind stubbornness as they try to save face politically may result in everything having to be torn out and that benefits no-one.

All, This is interesting.....the Dulwich Village LTN discussion has been cancelled. The message below is very interesting - it looks like this was supposed to be a private meeting that someone accidentally posted as public? Given the fact the DV closures went in well ahead of the ED ones it's perhaps telling that the council are still not engaging with the public on these closures. A Message from Southwark Community Engagement Team: Apologies to all who have signed up for this meeting. This had been set up on Eventbrite as a 'private' link and the meeting has not been publicised by us. However it appears that it has unintentionally been made visible to residents. The meeting is not taking place on 15th December, and will be scheduled for a later date. Please look out for wide publicity on this in the near future. In the first instance, all subscribers at https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/ will be notified of the meeting. Apologies again for all confusion.

Legal - I agree. Much is about the echo-chamber you live in. I have yet to meet anyone who supports the closures but we live in a part of Dulwich negatively impacted by them, so all the people I speak to are living with the fallout and so are very much against them. I just wish the council would give equal weighting to the views of everyone. The recent ED LTN meetings were so skewed towards the pro-closure lobby that it was a bit embarrassing. The opening slides showing only pictures of people cycling on empty streets and regurgitating many of the pictures supplied by the pro-closure lobby and not showing any of the images sent to the council from those on roads impacted by the displacement was funny, was it not such an obvious fudge. The council is terrified of a level playing field as I believe they know those impacted negatively far outweigh those impacted positively.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...as they say the first step to recovery is > admitting there is a > > problem....it's more than many of the > pro-closure > > lobby can bring themselves to admit! > > It is precisely the people who support making > space for walking and cycling who are taking the > first step to recovery. But it's making things worse....how long do we have to wait before these people realise this is not the solution? The big issue remains that the most supportive voices come from those who are within the area directly benefitting from the closures. As long as their street is quiet they don't care about anyone else's and the council doesn't dare do proper monitoring because they know what it will show: it's making things worse.

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - traffic also extended up Horniman Hill > Forest > Hill, big I didn?t go up there. The queue of cars > for the xmas trees was clearly a major cause of LL > gridlock, and was likely contributing yesterday > afternoon/evening too. You?ve said today is the > worst you?ve seen for 15 years, here?s the most > probable cause, but you fixated on the LTN. > > My point is, you keep presenting evidence which > when examined has little or no substance. You then > change the subject, conflate topics, mis-direct, > or ignore. It undermines any reasonable points > that might be up for discussion. My picture and commentary was in relation to the northern end today...... I am glad, however, that you have admitted there is congestion at the southern end...as they say the first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem....it's more than many of the pro-closure lobby can bring themselves to admit!

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Me too. Intrigued I followed the gridlock > eastbound along to junction with South circular > > ...the gridlock is caused by the xmas tree sales > opposite the Grove. Vehicles on both sides (but > largely from North) waiting to turn into the > small, full, car-park. Staff are trying to manage > the situation(?!) but it?s preventing traffic > flow. Every cycle of the lights allows v few cars > onto South Circular. > > As I left an articulated lorry was trying to > navigate the column of 5(?) cars waiting to get > into the xmas tree sales. > > That?s what?s causing the tailback today. So it's Xmas trees sales today....what about the preceeding months....? Yesterday you said it was something in Forest Hill. As I was saying....there's always some sort of excuse from the pro-closure lobby. The issue is very clear for everyone (bar the most blinkered) to see. The LTNs are forcing too many vehicles down too few roads which is causing congestion and an increase in pollution caused by idling engines. A lot of us had the common sense to realise this was an inevitable impact of the closures. LTNs do not reduce car usage enough to mean there isn't significant impact on other roads that have to absorb the displacement. How some of our councillors can tell us they go to Lordship Lane regularly and think traffic is no heavier than before is beyond me. It's all very Comical Ali.

Heartblock - the pro-closure lobby have an excuse for everything, but what they cannot escape is the fact that traffic has been displaced onto other roads and is causing big issues for the roads. No matter how many times they, or the council, tell us that they haven't noticed any increases in traffic we all know the truth. Raeburn - in the interest of balance I went to the northern end of Lordship Lane today and took these pictures. THe Lane is now congested all day Saturday and Sunday and is the worst I have seen it for the 15 years I have lived here. I have more photos too that I will upload on Monday as I am struggling to get them under the 600kb file size.

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets photo is taken facing South West, away > from Court Lane. The jam extended all the way to > Forest Hill, 1km away from the LTN - ? It?s also > the first Friday since restrictions have been > eased. There?s been waterworks at the junction of > South Circ and LL these last few weeks too. > > My point is that presenting this photo as evidence > is just incorrect. Not sure if this is knowingly > or naively, but it serves to undermine any > reasonable discussion. Raeburn, it is like that every day - I have posted pictures from other days previously. It is being caused by traffic having to use LL to get to the A205 and the tailback past the shops as they try to filter right at the Grove. This is now why people are using Underhill as the corner cutter to get onto the A205 past the Grove.In fact, I suspect it has been particularly bad these last few days because Underhill is closed and the cut through is not available This is all caused by the LTNs forcing traffic along Lordship Lane as they can now longer go west on the closed routes.

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But that jam went all the way into Forest Hill? I > walked from Overhill Rd bus stop (100m from Court > Lane) to Forest Hill Sainsbury?s at 19.30, I kept > same pace as vehicles in the jam the whole way. > Perhaps there are works beyond? > > Not sure what your point is, but your evidence > undermines any reasonable discussion. Stop > wilfully misrepresenting what?s really going on. I think my point is quite clear. Let me spell it out for you: the traffic congestion on that section of Lordship Lane has been horrendous since the LTNs went in as the LTNs close two of 4 routes east/west across Dulwich. Does that help clarify things for you? It is like that every night along the southern part of Lordship Lane. Hardly wilful misrepresentation - go walk up there yourself every night and see what you see. And just for the record I did not throw a log in the road around the corner to cause the tailback so I can get the picture! Out of interest Raeburn, what do you think is going on?

Which brings us back to the key issue here: PTAL scores in Dulwich are poor so the council can block as many roads as they like but people will still drive (even if it means delays and detours) as car ownership is high because public transport remains poor. LTNs don't solve the problem, they actually create a bigger problem - they merely push them further down the road and some of us have been saying this for a very long time. And it leads to the daily congestion we see all over the area - here's tonight's traffic jam on Lordship Lane heading towards Grove Tavern which, despite what some councillors say about traffic being no heavier, is like this nightly since the LTNs went in.

Ex- might it also now be the case that we have a similar - Ooh, we'll have some of that....when it comes to LTNs too....;-) It seems similarly flawed, ill thought out and poorly implemented....do our councils ever learn? Much like an awful nightclub it won't be long before LTNs get a new name, such is their reputation.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rch Wrote: > -> > > This led to the implementation of the current > flawed junction scheme connecting Dulwich > Village/Calton/Court Lane which, in my opinion, > triggered the campaign for the current closure of > the junction, which had been rejected back in > 2006/07. > > Interested in the 'flawed junction' design. As an > occasional driver I'd avoided using that to get > into the village during peak times. As a cyclist > using it daily I wrote to Southwark in the 90s on > two issues, the need for a crossing by the school > and changing the priorities as traffic from > Carlton Avenue which didn't have the right of way > tended to block the route making it even worse for > Court Lane. So you may as well formalise that > rather than sitting in traffic grumping at selfish > drivers blocking your right of way. Southwark > wrote back saying they were not changing things so > it was nice to see the crossing installed in much > later years, and then finally the change of > priorities. > > Just asking as was curious about the comment on > flawed design. I had nothing to do with the > closure but you probably know my views on that. The council's own report concluded that the redesigned junction created more congestion and more pollution (both were based on actual data).

Has anyone else noticed that the congestion problems are back with vengeance now the Lockdown 2 has come to an end - Lordship Lane south towards the Grove Tavern was terrible last night? Ex- many thanks for taking a look at that - as I suspected much both sides of the debate are doing is based on their own interpretation of data which is why we must all force the council to do actual monitoring and supply the raw data. I read with interest your comment: It also doesn't differentiate between types of journey or vehicle - for instance no mention of delivery vans vs private cars etc. I noticed Cllr Burgess said on the ED LTN meeting that they would be using Waze data for their modelling (in lieu of raw data) - does Waze allow for any differentiation between vehicle type as Waze is very popular amongst delivery drivers and Uber drivers? So I am not at all convinced the council using Waze as the basis of their monitoring for these projects is a wise approach.

A pretty compelling one though isn't it! ;-) Well, the council have created a right mess haven't they.....? There are solid, movable barriers but they still delay the emergency services as they have to get out, unlock them and remove them. It will be interesting to see how Southwark choose to address this. The problem for the council and the pro-closure lobby is that if you replace them with cameras that leads everyone to timed closures (One Dulwich) and that is not part of their modus operandi.

This was taken from the council's own Phase 4 recommendations document for Peckham Rye Emergency services have indicated they will not support schemes which promote hard road closures as they will increase response times. Their preference is for camera enforced closures without physical prevention for vehicles. And then on a recent council live-streamed meeting the Southwark fire chief said that they were not supportive of immovable road closures.

Just some more evidence of the emergency services' dislike of immovable LTNs:

Ah ha...that part didn't select when I selected the page to copy and paste - it appears beneath a part that looks like the end of the article - so I can assure you that wasn't wilful misrepresentation - I am not that stupid! I have pasted it below for balance. But still, the point is valid: when the Southwark News submitted an FOI they found that the LTN road closures had caused delays in response times and this quote is quite compelling don't you think (I also think it is interesting the council saying that they are talking to Sat Nav companies - I suspect this is one of the issues - the emergency services): Internally the ambulance service says it has seen > ?multiple no/low harm incidents reported and an > increase to on scene to hospital times,? as a > side-effect of traffic calming measures across the > capital. > > The service?s chief operating officer Khadir Meer > wrote to local authorities earlier this year to > express his concern, and the ambulance service is > consistently opposing physical barriers like > planters on the grounds they could delay > ambulances. Remainder of Article The reports were obtained by the News under Freedom of Information laws by asking for incident reports which mention words relating to sat-navs. Shockingly they also reveal in February one patient appears to have died of a heart attack after paramedics were sent to the wrong road because their sat-nav misdirected them. When they realised they were in the wrong place they called for back-up ? which was then delayed because they too were sent to the wrong location by sat-nav. ?It is not suggested that the delay was wholly responsible for the outcome however the minutes wasted may have enabled the crew to be making better progress towards hospital as it was clear that the patient was very unwell,? the report states. Sat-nav problems also caused one patient having a heart attack to be taken to St Thomas? Hospital when both St George?s in Tooting and King?s College Hospital were much closer. And in yet another case, a father of a patient coughing up blood was forced to run off ?looking for ambulance and even jumped in car to look for ambulance,? after sat-nav errors. A spokesperson for the Ambulance Service said ultimately the responsibility for sat-nav issues was with those who owned the software. ?We encourage our crews to report any road access or navigation issues so that we can share this information with the rest of our crews and follow it up with relevant London agencies and authorities,? said the spokesperson. ?However, responsibility for updating London-wide maps and satnav systems lies with the satellite navigation software owners.?

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the article you linked to is about Sat Navs > not having current data? I understand the systems > in these vehicles take minutes to recalculate a > new route, sometimes needing to be completely > reset, taking 5+ mins. That was the issue in Feb, > nothing to do with LTN?s > > Problem is any reasonable debate is lost when > things like this happen. > > Strange thing is an ambulance would have been able > to drive around the initial planters ....but > people driving cars also kept mounting the > pavements to drive around them. Ergo, it?s these > drivers who have Put lives at risk - ? Sorry these incidents were in August and Sept - are we reading the same article - looks like their sat navs take months to update? PARAMEDICS SAY LOW TRAFFIC ROADBLOCKS DELAYED RESPONSE TO TWO LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCIES BECAUSE SATNAVS DIDN?T RECOGNISE THEM JOSH SALISBURY (30 November, 2020) Medics have complained they were delayed to at least two life-threatening seizures in Southwark 5 40840 Image: Cook's Road before a camera-operated barrier was installed last month Paramedics say they have been delayed on 999 calls to patients in life-threatening conditions because their sat navs have not recognised new ?low traffic? roadblocks. Medics complained of delays getting to at least two people having life-threatening fits in Southwark. One of the roadblocks singled out for causing delays to emergency calls is on Cook?s Road, SE17 according to reports written by paramedics for an NHS database logging patient safety incidents. In one call on August 19, a paramedic crew was asked to respond to a category one emergency ? for the most serious life-threatening injuries ? for a fitting patient in nearby Olney Road. A planter blocked the way on Cook?s Road, approximately 200 yards before the turn to arrive on-scene. Crews turned around but then hit another barrier in Chapter Road, ?where another planter box in the middle of the road prevented any vehicles from passing through.? This forced paramedics to take a longer route, taking roughly seven minutes extra. Paramedics have also complained about a roadblock on Chapter Road SE17 On September 23 another crew who were again called to a fitting patient in a life-threatening condition but were stopped by planter boxes on Cook?s Road. ?This significantly delayed our response to the CAT 1, and we were delayed by approx.5 mins,? they say. Another incident on August 30 reports a delay of ten minutes to a category two call for an emergency in Otto Road because of sat-navs not recognising the roadblocks. ?With sat nav unaware of new closures it could not reroute us,? states the report. ?Our response time to a CAT 2 call was significantly hindered as a result.? A further delay was reported by a different crew of up to eight minutes on a call because of the ?brand new flowerpot road blockage? on the 12th September at roadblocks in SE17. In another incident, paramedics complained of a delay on a 999 call because of council roadblocks in East Dulwich Road and Carlton Avenue. Cllr Catherine Rose, the council?s transport boss, said Southwark was working with the emergency services to make sure they could get to patients. ?We?ve converted a number of permeable road closures to camera operated controls, at the request of the Emergency Services,? she said on Friday. ?Cooks Road is among these ? we introduced a camera system there, back in October. ?The Ambulance Service raised Chapter Road in a meeting with us yesterday, so we are investigating options here currently as well.? Internally the ambulance service says it has seen ?multiple no/low harm incidents reported and an increase to on scene to hospital times,? as a side-effect of traffic calming measures across the capital. The service?s chief operating officer Khadir Meer wrote to local authorities earlier this year to express his concern, and the ambulance service is consistently opposing physical barriers like planters on the grounds they could delay ambulances. However, academics last week published a paper which appeared to show that LTNs do not cause delays to the emergency services. Researchers analysed the response times of firefighters in Waltham Forest, which has had LTNs since 2015. Academics found that while delays had not actually increased, a greater proportion of delays were being blamed on LTNs rather than less visible causes such as congested roads. ?These findings demonstrate that traffic calming measures can initially be identified as delaying some trips without any overall effect on response time performance,? states the paper. Asked for comment, the London Ambulance Service repeated a statement it gave this paper in September. The statement says they have the ?potential? to delay life-saving calls, and that the service is lobbying to make sure that is considered. ?That is why we continue to work with Transport for London (TfL) and local authorities, including Southwark, to ensure emergency vehicle access is properly considered, and the impact of any changes monitored,? said an LAS spokesperson. A number of factors affect response times such as congestion, weather, and ambulance staffing levels meaning it can be hard to tell whether Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are causing delays or if any delays are being caused by another factor.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yet again, no mention of excessive car usage > contributing to congestion and delays to emergency > services No because it is a story about LTNs causing disruption to response times - are you suggesting there should be a follow-up article on the delays being caused by the congestion caused by the LTNs too!!! ;-) Clearly, despite what the pro-lobby would try to have us all believe the planters are causing issues for the emergency services - we have to all hope that we aren't the ones needing the emergency services. One wonders why the council is steadfastly refusing to remove them and replace them with something the emergency services agree with and it begs the question how much consultation was done with the emergency services in the first place.

Yes good article and I think it is good that the council is acknowledging that it hasn't done this in a joined up manner but I also agree that the meeting lacked any real answers. Let's see what the amendments are in the New Year but I suspect they will likely be the removal of immovable planters being replaced by movable bollards to placate the emergency services. I also suspect the council hopes it can ride out the storm until June.

And despite Cllr McAsh not remembering anyone saying this Cllr Charlie Smith did definitely say it during his comments during the evening ED LTN meeting.

Ambulance teams complaining that Carlton Avenue (amongst others) closure delayed 999 response....https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/paramedics-say-low-traffic-roadblocks-delayed-response-to-at-least-two-life-threatening-emergencies-because-satnavs-didnt-recognise-them/?cmpredirect

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, we can all see how K&C always have the best > interests of their poorer and more vulnerable > residents at heart. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no > more > > nebulous than your retort that school streets > > don't work - and your response amplifies my > point > > that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want > to > > entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives > > ;-) > > > > What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their > > entrenchment actually creates more problems and > it > > creates resentment and people move from a > > pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a > middle > > ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that > > does nobody any good. This is being > demonstrated > > very aptly by what is going on in west London > > right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A > perfectly > > sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane > > had been put in running from Kensington out to > > Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is > the > > local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic > approach > > from both sides will result in positive > outcomes > > for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of > going > > back to how things were and that benefits > no-one. Given the closures in Dulwich Village can we assert that Southwark still have the interests of their poorer and more vulnerable residents at heart as they are the ones dealing with displacement tsunami from these closures? P.S. Redpost you should have seen that one coming....;-)

Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no more nebulous than your retort that school streets don't work - and your response amplifies my point that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want to entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives ;-) What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their entrenchment actually creates more problems and it creates resentment and people move from a pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a middle ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that does nobody any good. This is being demonstrated very aptly by what is going on in west London right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A perfectly sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane had been put in running from Kensington out to Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is the local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic approach from both sides will result in positive outcomes for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of going back to how things were and that benefits no-one.