Rockets

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, I see that and I also see empty stretches > of LL, so neither shows a typical situation. It > shows a snapshot, that's all. Every day feels like > a Friday because you maybe want it to because it > reinforces your viewpoint? (You also have a car, > so are, ipso facto, part of the problem even > though you may not want to believe that.) Nigello - you only want to see what you want to see (same applies for me). My pictures are based on what is happening and the nonsense some people are spouting about this being because of the Christmas tree sellers on the A205 is utter hogwash - anyone who bothers to look will have seen those queues have been there since the LTNs went in and well before any Christmas trees were being sold. You revel in images of proof there isn't a problem yet attack those posting images showing there is - you don't work for the council do you? ;-) I am not even going to grace your accusation of me being part of the problem with a response - it is a childish, and frankly, ill-conceived attempt to bait which really goes to show the problem those who dare voice an opinion other than total support for the closures face. Any second now I am sure you'll pull the Daily Mail/Nigel Farage/Jeremy Clarkson* accusation.......it's frankly tiresome and goes to show how fanatical some of the pro-closure cultists have become - incapable of having any reasoned debate or acknowledge that there might be another side of the story without defaulting to attacks. It's doing your cause no favours. *delete as applicable

My experience of LL northbound has been that every Saturday it is nose-to-tail to the GG roundabout. Driving habits are definitely changing and the rush-hour is no longer predictable. For example, this is a picture I took at 4.30pm today - nose-to-tail to Grove Tavern along Lordship southbound from the Library. Every day feels like a Friday now where the rush-hour starts earlier as people try to get ahead of the traffic.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Article on electric vehicles, greening our roads > https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Greening > -the-EV-Transition-586/?utm_source=Transport+Times > &utm_campaign=0a64e958c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30 > _11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3 > f39-0a64e958c8-250793593 > > "This will include understanding how we rebalance > road space between cars, buses, cycling and > walking. It means not locking-in car dependence by > assuming we just replace ICEs with (more) EVs. We > should be reducing our carbon footprint by > shifting to much more intensive use of a smaller > fleet of vehicles and other e-micromobility > solutions." > > It's a transport academic, but I am sure that many > of you know better. Malumbu - that article poses more questions than it answers (EVs for example not providing whole-life carbon benefits until beyond 2030) and it is clear that whilst we need to decrease our reliance on ICE vehicles there isn't a simple and straight-forward solution. Electric infrastructure is a huge issue and a major challenge to try to overcome to encourage more EV usage (our council is struggling to put bike racks on streets yet alone providing electric charge points for every household). We all also have to be careful that we don't fall into the Dulwich Village Cycle Mentality which is so prevalent amongst those benefiting from the closures - the - "well I have room to store a bike/charge my Tesla, surely everyone else can" mindset. And to that end this line from that article is so telling.... There are real risks that the less well-off car-dependent groups and the 25% of households who do not own cars will be disadvantaged.

Unfortunately, the presumption of connectivity is something all organisations do now - the more they shift online the fewer people they need to employ to answer the phones. On the whole I have also found councillors responsive and supportive when needed - they can just be, ahem, a little selective about some of the things they chose not to respond to.

But Ex- even when transport is working few people use it in Dulwich because there isn't enough of it and it doesn't go to the places people need it to. You cannot expect wholesale modal shifts in areas without good PTAL scores - it's exactly why Southwarks own advice on closures said exactly that: it needs to go into areas with good PTAL scores and low car ownership levels - neither of which come close to applying in Dulwich. Ex- is there any proof that the bedding in period is anything but people finding other routes to circumvent the closures? If you look at the Waltham Forest closure there are many other routes available to people to go around the block of closures and the council's own data shows that those roads did experience a permanent increase in traffic. I am starting to wonder whether traffic evaporation is very much a real thing but not in the sense that the pro-closure protagonists use it but in the sense that it evaporates from one street to rain on another one nearby and that Dulwich doesn't have the street layout or geography to allow the absorption and this is why we are seeing the north/south routes struggling as people try to get around the east/west closures.

I think we also have to ground some of the discussions going on locally with the fact that the Guys and St Thomas' Trust are insisting on investing ?50,000 in proper monitoring in the 3 Southwark LTNs they are sponsoring so they can properly assess displacement. If a charity is doing this to gather actual data you have to ask why the council is relying on modelling - one can only suspect the charity doesn't believe modelling gives an accurate picture of what is happening (good or bad).

Yes Abe they have - the DV ones went in towards the end of June - BUT the council hasn't been monitoring. I think everyone, on both side of the argument, should be very concerned that the council wants to rely on modelling rather than actual data. If I was on the pro-closure side I would want to be able to see, definitively, that these closures are having the desired effect. Maybe some of the pro-closure folks on here could comment and support this? I think the council realised after the first DV "improvement" works that if you spend all that money to try and reduce congestion and pollution and your own detailed monitoring shows an actual increase in pollution then you are creating a very public rod for your own back! I think they know the LTNs are causing an increase in pollution but are doing everything in their power to bury it.

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.?