Rockets

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.....

Cllr Newens admitted there was not good communication between the council and the emergency services when they implemented the Dulwich closures. This is obviously contrary to what our councillors have been telling us throughout this process. Amazing.......

Interesting response from the charity lady that no-one has done this level of detail before so displacement is tough to judge but you can expect displacement onto main roads but they think it reduces over time. Their work is designed to prove is definitively. She has been very impressive but I would also challenge her assumption that sat navs will direct people onto main roads when LTNs are implemented following a question about displacement onto residential roads. Sat Navs will find the clearest route so not sure that stands up to scrutiny. The sat nav algorithms will find the quickest route whether they are main roads or residential roads. Cllr Werner followed up on this point about what work the council can do with sat nav companies. The question this call poses to me is why can a charity do this and appear a hell of a lot more professional than our council who seem to be taking a very haphazard approach to these measures?

Cllr Graham Neale - claiming the council was being ambushed by a small but vocal minority (he reiterated that small but vocal minority twice) - I presume he was referring to the 3 proposed areas or more broadly? The small but vocal minority seems to be a bit of a narrative the council is trying to weave.

And interesting their selection criteria are: High child obesity Poor air quality High levels of social housing Higher proportion of Black ethnicity Schools Local Parks AND.....they are looking at displacement issues and the impact on surrounding streets..... The council is getting absolutely schooled by a charity on how to run an LTN implementation programme!!!! ;-)

When Cllr Ochere said the report stated the first two LTNs had been well received and he put on record there was consultation on-going about that he referred to Brunswick - is the other one the Dulwich set? Very interesting that Guys and St Thomas are paying for monitoring to establish a baseline and the council chap said there is no baseline in Dulwich as they had to implement them quickly.

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?

The new measures around Goodrich School are creating daily gridlock as the council has effectively created two-way roads that can only accommodate cars one way. The Goodrich/Dunstans roundabout is now gridlocked on a daily basis. Is anyone at the council prepared to show any leadership one wonders? They have made an utter pig's ear of every one of these measures.

Are the council now saying they have created a school drop-off problem by closing Melbourne Grove at one end i.e. it has actually encouraged parents to drive their children to school? Is it a problem at school times? Adding a school street to an already closed road seems ludicrous and seems completely counter to their protestations that they care about the shops on Melbourne Grove - I can't imagine this is going to help those shops one bit and likely drive more custom away. Does anyone get the sense the council hasn't got the first clue that they are doing? Peckham Rye closures get binned, the DV/EDG junction is made even worse with the huge bike lane (was this at the behest of Southwark cyclists per chance - they moaned that the cycle lane in the Peckham Rye recommendations was not wide enough and the council bowed down to their cycle paymasters....!!! ;-)) - all adds up to a comedy of errors and instills very little confidence in anyone that the council should be given these powers.

The "proof" is very very questionable and does not bear up to any kind of detailed scrutiny. Apparently a lot of the "great" experiences of the Waltham Forest LTN are based on computer modelling and not any kind of definitive monitoring. My biggest concern is that it seems increasingly as if Southwark are going to base their proof of success (or otherwise) on modelling and not any actual monitoring - which surely has to be a minimum pre-requisite for these projects. @littleninjaUK on twitter is well worth a follow as he looks into a lot of the data provided as facts by the pro-closure lobby and councils and much of it is paper thin. The consensus though is that what people can definitively say is that LTNs create increases in traffic on surrounding roads which does not dissipate over time. Even the council in Waltham Forest admitted that a road 3.1 miles away from the LTN saw a consistent 28& increase in traffic after the LTNs went in.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - absolutely! There's a real problem here > in that Government and, to a lesser extent, > councils have pottered along for years > (decades...) doing things very gradually, very > piecemeal. A lot of that is simply how Government > functions anyway, it's all very slow progress for > various reasons. That's not necessarily a > criticism, just a factual statement. > > Austerity has removed the opportunity for councils > to do anything like as much as they've wanted. > > Now, with Paris Agreement and kickstarted by > Covid, there's sudden rapid changes in policy, > urgent pressing need to "do things" (some of which > is the more politically convenient "being seen to > do things whether or not those things are > positive"). > > It's the equivalent of living in a house for 30 > years and doing little more than painting the > skirting boards in that time and then suddenly > discovering that the place is falling down and > needs full scaffolding, re-plumbing, re-wiring and > re-decorating. There's going to be disruption no > matter which way you go about it. And taking you metaphor once step further the problem is the council seems to have decided to focus on the properties that are, in fact, in least need of repair.....

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thanks Legal Alien > > > > That finally confirms the war on motorists that > > has been denied on here for so long: > > > It's Government policy - Paris Agreement plus a > couple of other sections of various policies > commit Government to urgent decarbonisation / > lowered carbon emissions. > > There's a summary of the dichotomoy here: > https://theconversation.com/car-dependency-uk-gove > rnment-cant-cut-driving-and-build-lots-of-roads-at > -same-time-134965 > > On the one hand, lowering congestion / more > efficient journeys / keeping the economy going; on > the other hand the very pressing need to urgently > cut emissions. Transport (vast majority of which > is cars and vans) contributes about 28% of carbon > emissions nationally. > > It's only perceived as a War on Motorists because > literally nothing has been done to stop motoring > (quite the opposite) over the last 30 years and > now there's the first pockets of resistance (and > that is all it is, it's far from a "war") that > suddenly everyone is up in arms. Compared to what > some cities have had to implement (like total or > partial bans on all private vehicles on certain > days), this is not a war, this is a few potshots! > > The council are implementing Government policy. Of > course there's a debate to be had about HOW that > policy is formulated by Government, fed down to > councils and implemented by them which is the role > of a Scrutiny Committee in public office. I think you hit the nail on the head: many are questioning how the council are implementing them (especially in light of the council's own guidance over implementation criteria the last few years) and why they are focussing on areas like Dulwich Village and East Dulwich that don't come close to meeting their own criteria (high PTAL scores, low car ownership, areas of depravation). It looks more and more like councillor vanity projects are taking precedent here.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nxjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > nxjen Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > I don?t see any trolling. I came across > the > > > > > decorations last week and didn?t see any > > > > > insensitive messages on the gravestones. > As > > > for > > > > > heart over-ruling head ... > > > > > > > > Yes because Rat Run and This is a Dead End > > are > > > > such familiar phrases used globally at > > > Halloween > > > > aren't they...how silly of me... > > > > > > > > > You were chuckling about them on 30 October, > as > > I > > > suspect the majority did when they saw them > > > > I realised how utterly insensitive a lot of > them > > were to anyone with a business struggling on > > Melbourne Grove. In that light do you not think > > they were a bit ill-conceived and insensitive > > given what is happening to a lot of businesses > > since the closures? Or is it that because you > > support them that everything is fair game now > and > > we should all just laugh along with the jokes > and > > turn a blind eye to the reality of the negative > > impact of the closures? > > I will not be responding to your question out of > sensitivity to the traders Of course not......;-) Utterly predictable......

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nxjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I don?t see any trolling. I came across the > > > decorations last week and didn?t see any > > > insensitive messages on the gravestones. As > for > > > heart over-ruling head ... > > > > Yes because Rat Run and This is a Dead End are > > such familiar phrases used globally at > Halloween > > aren't they...how silly of me... > > > You were chuckling about them on 30 October, as I > suspect the majority did when they saw them I realised how utterly insensitive a lot of them were to anyone with a business struggling on Melbourne Grove. In that light do you not think they were a bit ill-conceived and insensitive given what is happening to a lot of businesses since the closures? Or is it that because you support them that everything is fair game now and we should all just laugh along with the jokes and turn a blind eye to the reality of the negative impact of the closures?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t see any trolling. I came across the > decorations last week and didn?t see any > insensitive messages on the gravestones. As for > heart over-ruling head ... Yes because Rat Run and This is a Dead End are such familiar phrases used globally at Halloween aren't they...how silly of me...

As admirable as it was to try and create footfall to then troll some of the businesses you are trying to help with the insensitive messages on the gravestones is really quite odd. Looks like whomever designed the messages let their heart overrule their head.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Galileo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I can assure you no offence was intended, in > fact > > quite the opposite. An upside to making a > > Halloween walk more enjoyable for all in these > > rubbish times is to increase footfall along the > > road which should hopefully help advertise the > > local businesses. I?m sure there are those who > > will happily sit at their phones and write that > > it?s not enough etc but it has been weeks of > > planning and work by the local community for > the > > enjoyment of all, which I am saddened to see > you > > have chosen to view as some form of veiled > threat. > > > > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down > > > Melbourne > > > > Grove today - the residents have done a > great > > > job > > > > decorating the street for Halloween and > > putting > > > up > > > > the gravestones but I love how one of them > is > > > > trying to make a point by creating a couple > > of > > > > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and > > Cllr > > > > Newens suggests there is a problem with > > trolls > > > > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > > > > > > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is > > in > > > > fact a reference to the businesses on > > Melbourne > > > > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 568787456?s=09 > > > > > > This has not gone unnoticed by the businesses > > and > > > I dare say it doesn't feel terribly > > coincidental > > > to them given the threats to boycott them > > > personally and on this very forum. There is > one > > > entitled 'Yule Be Next' aimed at a business. > It > > > would be understandable if someone took that > > > personally given the context of what is > > happening > > > on the road. > > > > > > Tiddles, 'Shat on' does seem quite apt and > yes > > > most businesses in DV and ED bar a few are > > saying > > > they are struggling since road closures. > > > > > > On another note does anyone know if Southwark > > > Spine Cycling Route is still planned to go > > ahead? > > > If it does it might involve removing parking > > for > > > Bellenden Road businesses, and putting > > permeable > > > filters on Crystal Palace Road among othr > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/a > > > > > > > > > ctive-travel/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3& > > > > > > article > > > > > > If they go ahead with Phase 4 in Peckham cars > > will > > > be seeking routes through Crystal Palace Road > > and > > > residential roads in Peckham where they plan > to > > > put this Southwark Spine Route. > > > > > > Having had a look at the present cycle routes > > in > > > Southwark - with very few east to west just > > like > > > Southwark bus routes, that cycling lobbyists > > would > > > be satisfied with these road closures. They > > don't > > > seem to be serving them either. Surely they > > would > > > like to see some proper investment in actual > > > interlinked cycle paths, rather than short > > closed > > > roads which then spit them onto busier more > > > polluted RMR roads. > > > > > > Southwark is giving them cheap as chips > > planters, > > > not real routes that go anywhere, and > everyone > > > increased pollution and congestion on other > > roads. > > > If it was weeks in the planning could you not then > have found the time to come up with some messages > for the gravestones that were neither pointed and > political and made no reference whatsover to the > road closures? Many many people on the forum and > passersbys and business customers picked up on it > and commented on it. A family event, if it is > truly for the enjoyment of all, is not the time to > making points and jibes. This does not come over > as supportive of business. FTG those tombstones are so sad. They just could not help themselves could they? Utterly tone-deaf and actually quite reflective of the attitude many of the pro-closure lobby hold towards anyone who does not agree with them. It's actually quite menacing. I do hope whomever is responsible has apologised. Politicising something that was designed to engage with the whole community is shameful.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm confused, I thought people moved here because > the schools were so good. Perhaps if the schools > are better elsewhere then parents will move from > the area, making housing more affordable and as > the majority of kids will then go to local schools > less traffic in the morning. Would you really be > that insane to drive your kids to Croydon and > beyond each morning? > > > > > > Malumbu - you miss the point. Many of the > > independent schools that run bus services > through > > the Dulwich area are schools much further > afield > > than can be walked of cycled - schools like > > Trinity, Royal Russell, Whitgift, St Dunstan's > and > > Colfes etc. The fact that some are considering > > cutting Dulwich from their routes should not be > > heralded as it will inevitably lead to more > people > > using their cars. People may have to if the school buses get cancelled because they can't negotiate the nonsense congestion around Dulwich caused by these closures......all a bit self-defeating don't you think!?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is all excellent news, now it is safer to > walk and cycle perhaps parents may walk or cycle > their kids to school, and in time let them do this > unaccompanied, as we did all those years ago. > > Perhaps the post is ironic as the school run is > the worst time of the day for congestion. > > > > I have also heard that a lot of the Independent > > schools not in the area that run bus services > to > > pick children from Dulwich are rerouting their > > buses away from the Dulwich area as the traffic > is > > so bad. One wonders if those children will now > > need to be driven as a result. Malumbu - you miss the point. Many of the independent schools that run bus services through the Dulwich area are schools much further afield than can be walked of cycled - schools like Trinity, Royal Russell, Whitgift, St Dunstan's and Colfes etc. The fact that some are considering cutting Dulwich from their routes should not be heralded as it will inevitably lead to more people using their cars.

The photo I had found had come from one of the cycle activists who was heralding it's arrival as well - good to see a few people are happy with it at least! Anyone know how DV was coping this morning with these new measures? Not sure I would be too happy if I was a DV resident as this pretty much throttles your ability to get anywhere. I have also heard that a lot of the Independent schools not in the area that run bus services to pick children from Dulwich are rerouting their buses away from the Dulwich area as the traffic is so bad. One wonders if those children will now need to be driven as a result.

Looks like there was a big turnout at the Crystal Palace protests - organisers claim 620. And One Lambeth beginning legal action against Lambeth Council. https://twitter.com/LambethOne/status/1322960629980942336?s=09

But Ex- the council appears to view the ETROs as a licence for stupidly...take a look at the attached...who thought this was going to be a good solution at the DV/EDG junction? You can only presume the person who planned this is 1) really stupid or 2) looking for ways to create so much congestion that people choose another route. Who would have had to have signed this off? There appears to have been gridlock in DV today as a result - who is being held to account? We keep hearing from councillors let it bed in, we need time to assess but in my mind if the council continues to do things like the attached they should lose the power to do this. Any sane person can look at that photo and predict what will happen - you don't have to be a planning genius to see what will happen. This is why the council are under so much pressure and why the majority of residents are up in arms about these closures - they're just stupid.

I think it is important that everyone takes pictures and documents all these impacts of the closures. Send them to your councillors, send it to them on social media as well and make sure Cllr Kieron Williams is aware. Ultimately it is his responsibility from both party-political and council leadership lines to try to show the leadership to resolve these issues. He is the new leader and he needs to clean up the mess that was tolerated/positively encouraged by the previous leadership. Does anyone have any pictures of the traffic queues in DV today?