Rockets

I thought the council was pretty much furloughed during the first lockdown. I think what you are exposing here is how the council has been playing the system, talking to the lobbyists only and railroading things through without any sort of proper consultation. What is happening now, due to the great work people like you are doing, is that more people are getting engaged which will force the council to be more accountable and transparent. They have been getting away with murder for years. If nothing else this will level the playing field a little and they may find that getting stuff done without broad agreement will become more difficult. They have made this bed and now they have to lie in it.

Ex- it is bad. Here is a segment from Southwarks own report from April 2018.... https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf Some very telling info in that report...worth a read.... PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. Additionally it is interesting that the report you highlight on the increase in miles in Southwark, which I know is flavour of the month for the pro-closure lobby across London right now, but that report does actually show that the Miles peak was in 1999 (438m) and has been declining significantly until a few years ago it looks like it had declined by about 25% until 2013 (338m) and is now back up to 384m - is there any other data to support any conclusions as to why it is increasing - people seem to be happy to throw the stat around but there must be some rational behind it? Could this be around the time home deliveries became popularised?

Yes good point, only emergency, refuse vehicle, taxis and bikes will be allowed through. No resident permits will be issued so residents will be prevented from using the gates too. Apparently the council said residents can only get permits when tied to a CPZ! At a time more people are having to use home deliveries due to lockdown you have to wonder how popular this will be.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maybe it's linked to the Townley Road thing in > some way...eg no through route to East Dulwich > Grove? > > (to stop lots of traffic going to the end of > woodwarde/ calton and then realising it can't get > through?) > > ps and now I have "Road to Nowhere" on repeat in > my brain.... Talking Heads, takes me back to the > mid 80s... It's facing towards Grove Tavern so well past Townley and communicating to traffic heading out of Dulwich towards the A205. Unless it is telling people the A205 has no through route to Dulwich Village during those hours. It's brand new as still covered in plastic before the great unveiling!

Anyone noticed the new red sign that has appeared on Lordship Lane southbound near the junction of Court Lane. It is covered with plastic but what I could see refers to No Through Route on Mon to Fri 8 until and the rest is obscured. Does anyone know what this is for or are the planters coming out at the Court Lane/DV junction and cameras going in? I wondered if it was for Eynella but the sign is facing the wrong way for that.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These wands are exactly where they are needed, by > allowing cyclists to get safely to the advance > start zone. I cycle this way very regularly and > approx 60% of the time I couldn't get to the > advance start zone as the cycle lane was blocked > by cars. > > From what I can see, approx 70/80% of the road > width here is still allowed for cars. But they are causing increased congestion aren't they as no-one can proceed forward until the right filter has cleared? Or is it that in your view that doesn't matter as long as you can get into the bike box more easily?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'even now' is confusing in this post like > even now there are wands on that bit of cycle lane > the cyclists still go to the ASL. > > That tiny cycle lane is to allow access to the > ASL. With a few exceptions (eg the one in Dulwich > Village by the school) thats how ASLs are designed > - there is a tiny cycle lane leading in. See ED > Grove at Townley Road or Red Post Hill going south > into Dulwich Village! Its not the case that > cyclists would use one or the other! > > Also Rockets: > > "I am in favour of segregated cycle barriers where > they make sense - and I talk as someone who is a > cyclist and has done long commutes across London > on a daily basis. It makes no sense having cycle > barrier for that short section of road - unless, > of course, they are purposefully designed to > throttle traffic flow through the junction. I do > wonder whether the council got wind that the > cameras weren't going to go in at the DV > roundabout so decided to create a bottleneck" > assume this particular conspiracy theory has been > dropped now? Maybe when the Dulwich Village > restrictions go in the cycle lane wands on the > north side won't be an issue then! > > > > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > redpost Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > There was a cycle lane before the barriers > were > > > put in, however being frequently blocked by > > > drivers selfishness so it was necessary to > put > > a > > > barrier in. > > > > > > > > > n dulwich northerner Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > march46 Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > Interesting how you blame the council, > when > > > > there > > > > > was always traffic there > > > > > > > > Of course, and because their attempts to > > > improve > > > > things have been misconceived. While the N > > > Dulwich > > > > traffic lights' new right filter may have > > > > mitigated the tailback the council caused > by > > > the > > > > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the > > > filter > > > > with limiting the left lane to cyclists > (see > > > any > > > > in the photos?) which means that vehicles > > > heading > > > > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck > in > > > the > > > > tailback. > > > > There has always been a cyclist area at the > front > > of the lights too. Most make their way to it, > > even now. I yesterday watched three do this > while > > I was waiting to cross east Dulwich Grove. But they are causing more congestion aren't they - go on admit it...we all know you want to!!!!! ;-) Just utter those three simple words..."yes I agree"....;-) Yes, you are right they do become a bit of a moot point if the timed closures restrict traffic significantly during the hours of operation but, of course, the timed closures are not all day or at weekends. So maybe we can revisit this conversation once the timed closures come in and we will see what the congestion is like. Maybe we can have a little wager on it - I reckon it will be fine when the cameras are on but more congestion during the times when they are not on and they will actually create more pollution as a result. One hopes the council, ahem, brains have given this due consideration......

Update from OneDulwich tonight. Our councillors tell us that Phase 2 (camera-controlled restrictions on Dulwich Village, Turney Road, Burbage Road and Townley Road) will be going live in the week beginning 16 November. Local residents will be receiving letters alerting them to the changes. The Experimental Traffic Order that closed Calton Avenue and Court Lane to motorised traffic will be reviewed after six months. Formal objections must be lodged with the Council before Christmas. We believe there are good reasons why the Council?s actions can be challenged, and will send out information shortly about how and when to make objections. In the meantime, One Dulwich is working with a network of different groups across Dulwich, all asking the Council to modify the current traffic orders. Please get in touch via our main email hub [email protected] if your group would like to join this initiative. Finally, we now have more than 1700 supporters. Please remember that anyone over 18 can register ? you?re not limited to one per household. The more of us there are, the more we can make our voices heard.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > She was great and has had a Labour Councillor > > wishing her a ?place in hell?. A cult! > > > I missed the parliament thing yesterday but you > can read it on Hansard > https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-04/d > ebates/5CA1BC02-327D-4ACC-B499-434E3FBFBEE5/Covid- > 19EmergencyTransportAndTravelMeasuresInLondonBorou > ghs > > I saw the twitter thing - I think the chap is one > of the North London councillors - > https://twitter.com/RupaHuq/status/132401517356533 > 7608. Rupa's twitter account also has some video > extracts from yesterday's hearing. Cllr John Burke doesn't seem to be a very nice human being....but I am enjoying the threads where people are taking apart his recent tweets (that the likes of Cllr Newens and Leeming have been retweeting) about his increase in traffic in London which some are saying is based on estimations when real data showed actual decreases.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...they coupled the filter with limiting the left > lane to cyclists (see any in the photos?) > > Still photos prove nothing (to either side of the > pro / anti LTN argument). > > https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106586987-15 > 92830070587gettyimages-1069298836.jpeg?v=159283030 > 4&w=678&h=381 > > I could repeat that picture above for road, > ferries, airports showing either total congestion > or absolutely empty and none of it would prove > anything either way. > A picture of a traffic jam does not mean LTNs or a > cycle lane are to blame; a picture of an empty > road does not mean no vehicles ever use it. > > There was a short video on Twitter the other day > demonstrating the principle. It started with 4 > seconds of a completely empty cycle lane and then > (as the lights behind where the camera-person was > standing changed), a stream of cyclists passed. A > still shot of either anytime in the first 4 > seconds (empty) or anytime after that (very busy) > would have been incomplete and misleading. > > Part of the reason they installed such visible > counters on Embankment cycle lanes was to show > clearly and obviously, the number of people using > it, even though there were lots of stills > circulating of empty cycle lanes and to get away > from the accusations of biased / made up numbers. > > Edit: sort of agree with the comment above, that > traffic island needs to come out to make the cycle > lane work properly but then the lights need > re-phasing to accommodate a complete walk across > rather than a 2-stage walk where the pedestrian > stops at the island half way so there's pros and > cons (to drivers and pedestrians!) Ex - I very much appreciate your input on this subject as you come from a position of knowledge and your contributions are much more valuable than some of the purple-minion responses we get from some of the pro-closure lobby on here but all across Dulwich traffic is desperately trying to find a way around these closures and is inflicting problems on a much larger percentage of the population than those who are benefiting from them. Anyone who takes a walk through Dulwich can see it. Ask anyone who lives on Underhill Road what it is like now, ask anyone who shops on Lordship Lane, ask anyone who lives on East Dulwich Grove, in fact ask anyone beyond the pro-closure cultists and you will hear that no-one is happy with what is going on. Yet the council repeatedly paints the residents who have concerns as a vocal minority. They refuse to engage in any sort of debate and just push forward with their poorly designed and implemented plans. The DV bike wands are a classic example. To be honest, after watching the council meeting last night it is clear they have not got the first clue how they should be doing this and are just guessing - and we, the residents of Dulwich, are living with the consequences.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No i don't > > rockets - I thought you were in favour of > segregated cycles lanes down EDG? but fromt this I > guess you're only in favour when it doesn't reduce > car road space, which means nothing I am in favour of segregated cycle barriers where they make sense - and I talk as someone who is a cyclist and has done long commutes across London on a daily basis. It makes no sense having cycle barrier for that short section of road - unless, of course, they are purposefully designed to throttle traffic flow through the junction. I do wonder whether the council got wind that the cameras weren't going to go in at the DV roundabout so decided to create a bottleneck. Your comment that you don't think the new measures are causing more congestion is exactly why so many people get so frustrated with the pro-closure/pro-cycle cult - you can't view the world beyond your own myopic gaze. As long as you are catered for and happy then damn everyone else.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a cycle lane before the barriers were > put in, however being frequently blocked by > drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put a > barrier in. > > > n dulwich northerner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > march46 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Interesting how you blame the council, when > > there > > > was always traffic there > > > > Of course, and because their attempts to > improve > > things have been misconceived. While the N > Dulwich > > traffic lights' new right filter may have > > mitigated the tailback the council caused by > the > > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the > filter > > with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see > any > > in the photos?) which means that vehicles > heading > > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in > the > > tailback. Would you not agree that the barriers are now causing more congestion and pollution than there was before?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People just don't sit in traffic like that if they > could walk or cycle. > > Oh they do! > We did some modelling work years ago on something > similar and the actual inconvenience that an > individual has to be subjected to to force change > is quite incredible. This is part of the reason > that LTNs and other traffic measures take months > to bed in, not just a week or two. > > This has been mentioned before in these threads > but as with most things, there's a series of > reasons, it's never just one. > > For some people, they're in a warm comfy home > entertainment centre on wheels and (especially if > they're not paying fuel due to it being a company > car or work vehicle or they view their car as a > status symbol), they really don't care. Even if > there are quicker ways to get from A to B, they'll > take the car. "need" doesn't come into it. Sitting > in traffic in your Aston Martin is simply an > opportunity to show everybody else that you own an > Aston Martin. > > A surprising minority actually HAVE to drive - > there is no other way they could complete that > particular journey without considerable extra > expense / inconvenience. The problem is that most > people see themselves as being in this category - > there's a related sub-category of people who don't > know any other way. They've grown up being taken > to school / the shops / leisure trips by car and > they just continue that, it's their comfort zone, > what they've always known. They'll find it > inconvenient, they'll moan about traffic but it > takes quite a lot for them to actually think "hang > on, there must be an other way". Usually (not > always), these people are the ones convinced that > everyone else should drive less, thus freeing up > the road for them. > > There are people who WANT to do it by other means > but they're scared (of traffic, usually) and there > are plenty who have to use other options (public > transport or active travel) because they don't own > or have access to a car. Usually, the latter > category have no choice other than to put up with > conditions or not do . > > I'm hoping you knocked on every car window and > asked how long / far their journey is and if they > could use alternative methods but I expect it is > the usual finger in the air scientific conclusion > made on assumptions and lack of local and > realistic baseline data ? > > A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car > trips are shorter than 2 km, just under a third > (32 per > cent) are between 2 and 5km and the remaining > third are longer than 5km. Data from TfL: > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf > > Fairly obviously, not all of those journeys are > people carrying a fridge or a double bass or > returning from the shops with a new 60" TV. > They're not all disabled, they're not all taking 3 > kids to 3 different activities, they're not all > carrying precious cargo that simply could not be > done any other way. At least half of them fit into > the first two categories above - the "don't care > and will drive anyway" and the "I'm convinced I > have to drive". It would be interesting if we could map car usage onto PTAL scores. I suspect those who think they have to drive is driven, in large part, by access to public transportation - which we know is terrible in this part of London. It's why the council's own recommendation was to implement schemes in areas with high PTAL scores - Dulwich does not have high PTAL scores - in fact it has low PTAL scores, which is why lots of people have to drive.

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Council caused this congestion by > closing Calton Ave and pushing the traffic along > Dulwich Village north, then botching the northern > end traffic lights by limiting the left lane to > cyclists. Specifics, not banalities.... Spot on!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever you say, Mr(s) R, whatever you say. > You?ve a bigger axe to grind than I have and it > shows. I own no car so I?m putting my money where > my mouth is. People in vehicles cause congestion, > not councils. People who are made to drive down fewer and fewer roads cause congestion. Congestion only happens when demand outstrips supply. The council restricts supply so, vis-a-vis, demand increases = congestion. Quite simple.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks to too many people making journeys that > could be made on foot or on a bicycle, this > morning..... Or alternatively...caused by the council closing major routes across Dulwich thus forcing those cars doing journeys not able to be done on a bike or by foot along an ever decreasing number of routes thus causing congestion. Additionally at that junction you could also suggest: caused by the council putting wands in to create a dedicated cycle lane thereby reducing the road to a single lane width, thus creating huge congestion as cars backlog trying to clear the right filter. And in relation to the Goodrich/Dunstans morning gridlock you could say: Caused by an ever increasing number of cars that are trying to find routes around the congestion caused by the council's closure of roads in Dulwich Village which has created long lines of congestion along Lordship Lane southbound leading drivers to try and find an easterly route away from the gridlock.

They have made a complete mess of these projects. The call last night really demonstrated the hash the council has made of this. Lucy Saunders from the charity really exposed the council. I was so impressed with her presentation and the fact their approach was professional, measurable and accountable. It really shone a light on how amateurish the council's ham-fisted attempts have been. If they had followed the more transparent path the charity is taking we probably wouldn't be in this mess the council has left us in.

If you believe the councillors and the pro-closure lobby what we are all seeing happen in front of our eyes is not really there. Nope, isn't happening - there is no displacement and the cars are evaporating! We are, according to the councillors and their friends, the small vocal minority....! I would implore people to document evidence of this happening and send those pictures to your councillors (make sure Cllr Kieron Williams is added too) - I think it is the only way they are going to sit up and take note that what they are doing is making things a hell of a lot worse.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s not gridlock. It?s busy but it cleared. > Hyperbole serves no one well. > 🤷‍♂️ > Can?t wait till the road is barriered! Trust me, as the photo demonstrates it was gridlocked at the roundabout and was tailing back up the hill at Dunstans and down Goodrich from Donkey Alley. It has been like that most mornings at school drop off time. That, as my photo shows, is not hyperbole but fact (unless of course you think I photo-shopped the picture!). Photographic evidence is so useful at the moment to deposition the "there is no problem" hyperbole from the pro-closure lobby. Is it going to be barriered - I thought I heard that the council was standing that one down after opposition from Goodrich school and residents?

To give Cllr Newens credit she has been chasing Thames Water via her twitter feed as she highlights the fact that nothing has been happening and it has been causing disruption. Thames Water replied to her original tweet that: "We'll be unable to remove the barriers until the permanent reinstatement has been applied and had a few days to settle because of safety concerns".

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The video is on YouTube (link sent previously in > thread) now if that?s how you like to spend your > evening... > > They are lucky the Guys and Thomas lady was there > as they are the only ones doing anything > properly. > > The idea about making google/Waze change their > algorithm....do they think they can control that. > > As for emergency service they might have all > ticked the boxes but then why are ambulances still > attempting to go through these LTN areas and > having to reroute... > > > Interesting how this all works. I think the discussion around Waze etc was about making sure the closures were flagged on the systems (I may be wrong though). Waze, Google etc use user posted data to show whether roads are closed or blocked because of an accident, burst water main etc. I think it is naive of councillors to think (if this is what they meant) that sat nav companies would prioritise main road usage over others. The USPs for systems like Waze is that they find the quickest and clearest route using other user data shared over the cloud.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Goodrich/Dunstans roundabout is now gridlocked > on a daily basis. > No, it isn?t. Errrrrrmmmm....Exhibit A - this morning. I rest the case for the prosecution m'lud....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thats not what i heard at all - amazing how take > aways can be so different really! > > She said that as Dulwich was one of the first, had > the way that comms happens with LFB changed since > then and is there best practice developing. I > think what was interesting was that the LFB were > clear that there had been consultation on all > areas. They flagged the Tooley St scheme as > having some confusion so explained how they had > addressed this by talking to the teams on the > ground and doing site visits. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wtaf. Just had fire guy say they would have > liked > > to be involved a bit more In the LTN thing and > > Margy has said she realised that the emergency > > services have not perhaps been involved as much > as > > desirable in the dulwich thing and how could > this > > be improved. It?s a statutory requirement for > gods > > sake! May have misheard (confirmation bias), > will > > listen again in the morning. > > > > They?ve just asked fire guys whether they have > > been consulted on everything - they say maybe > on > > majority but some have been quite fluid. The great thing is we can all rewatch it again tomorrow to reconfirm our bias!!! ;-) It was clear to me that she admitted there had not been good communication between the council and the emergency services about the Dulwich LTNs. Additionally, if there had been consultation how does anyone explain the fire service telling the councillors on this call that they would prefer removable bollards to planters? One of the Cllrs asked that very question at the end. That doesn't suggest there has been any sort of proper consultation as we have a load of planters in place......

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was just correcting the idea that it was a new > cycle lane - it isn't > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes but that protection with wands means the > > junction no longer functions properly and is > > creating massive congestion and pollution > > problems. Do you not think in light of this the > > council should review the use of the wands? > > > > BTW has the A205 or Lordship Lane been shut - > > complete gridlock on the eastern side of > Lordship > > Lane tonight? Yes the lane has been there for a long time but the wands are limiting the road to one lane and thus creating traffic queues throughout the village as traffic cannot filter past those wanting to turn right. You would have thought someone from the council would have thought about that......this council pig has a lot of ears....

The fact the council seems to be finding out on this call that the fire service would prefer removable bollards over planters is so telling. Clearly, there has been no proper consultations with them at all as I am sure that would have been discussed. Are the council now going to have to rip the planters out and put in removable bollards - how much tax-payers money are they wasting on this? This call has been fascinating as it is obvious our council hasn't got the first clue how to manage this and are making basic mistake after mistake......it's a complete dereliction of duty.....