Rockets

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I WILL NOT BE SIGNING > As a cyclist I support these road closures. As do > most cyclists I know. Traffic is terrible lately, > but that is because too many people are making > short journeys, such as taking children to school > when they could walk. > If people chose to sit in the car for hours rather > than walk, that is their choice. And surely if > people want to go to a business they go there? > You can drive to M.G. just from the other end of > the road? If people are sitting in cars for hours does that not suggest their journey's are too long to be done on foot or on a bike? Once again the pro-closure lobby views the world only from their personal purview "If I can do it why can't everyone else"! There are a lot of cyclists who are now turning to oppose these closures as they realise they are doing far more harm than good.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all know the various campaigns - Southwark > Cyclists, Living Streets, Safe Routes to School, > Clean Air for Dulwich, Mums for Lungs, all are > also local cycling people and we know they have > pushed and pushed for solutions that impact on > them positively, and everyone else negatively. > They are not willing to reach a compromise, and > never were. > > I'm a member of the Dulwich Society and am fast > losing patience with a group that sub text their > name with: > "The Society?s aims and objectives are to foster > and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich, both in > the interests of its residents and the wider local > community of which it is a part, and to increase > awareness of the varied character that makes the > area so special." > > Clearly they are not as they supported the closure > of the Calton Avenue junction immediately ruining > the lives of hundreds who now have to sit in > traffic jams in Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, > the A205 and Croxted Road, thanks to the junction > and free passage being shut off. > > And from the latest Magazine: > "Travel and Environment Chair retires > > Alastair Hanton has stood down as chair of the > Society's Travel and Environment Group after 30 > years. He has been a very active member since the > late 1960s, working on its early campaign over the > introduction of the Scheme of Management, and was > at different times, both treasurer and secretary, > but he is best known as a tireless campaigner for > the improvement of pedestrian facilities and > cycling infrastructure in the local area."....."In > the wider context he was a trustee for the London > Cycling Campaign for many years and in 2004 he > founded Southwark Living Streets. This led to him > being heavily involved in the initial attempts to > create a pan-London umbrella group which > culminated in London Living Streets being > established in 2016. > > Perhaps his main achievement, though, has been his > success in encouraging local children to walk and > cycle to school. He was active in the Safe Routes > to School group and was instrumental in the > provision of additional pedestrian crossings in > Dulwich Village, Half Moon Lane and Burbage Road, > and the installation of designated cycle lanes. To > many younger environmental campaigners, he has > been a much-appreciated mentor - he has shared > ideas and showed by example what could be done. We > wish him well in his "retirement"." > > Unfortunately his influence carries part of the > blame for the situation we all now find ourselves. > Either like me, cut off if I need to get out and > having to sit in traffic jams or re-arrange > appointments in the future to fit with the camera > times, or like people in Burbage, the Village and > Turney Road who are going to face a lock in, or > lock out for five hours a day. > > Pity the businesses, pity the housebound ill > waiting for their carers, pity the disabled who > will take far longer now to get anywhere, I could > go on. > > Travel and Environment Subcommittee changes: > > "Following Alastair Hanton's retirement, Pamela > Monblat the secretary has also stepped down after > 15 years' service. She has made a major > contribution to the efficient running of the > subcommittee and we are very grateful to her. > Three other long-standing members have also > retired, Isaac Marks, Jeremy Nicholson and > Rosemary Dawson and we are also very appreciative > of their contributions." > > Yes, a clean out of the old guard. > > "Three new members have joined the committee > including a new secretary, Katy Savage. The new > subcommittee chair, who will be put forward at the > next AGM, is Harry Winter. Harry is a tax > barrister and has lived in Dulwich for 25 years > going to school locally. He is currently vice > chair of the Herne Hill Forum and is a keen > proponent of air quality, safe and healthy travel, > and environmental issues generally." > > So this committee has been taken over by > cyclists. > > Time the Dulwich Society started counting its > members to check they are not dropping > away......... It is so unbelievably incestuous and I am sure there are plenty of conflicts of interest given links to the council and councillors.

DougieFreeman - this does seem to be the go-to position of a lot of the pro-closure lobby that somehow people think the status quo was acceptable. It wasn't and everyone realises there have to be changes to the way we all use cars, home deliveries etc etc. No-one on here has ever said do nothing. What people want is something that doesn't make the problem worse - which is is obvious these closures are currently doing. So James, are you at all worried about the increased congestion and pollution that these closures are causing on other roads and what, bar closing more roads, do you think can be done to resolve it? It's clear the traffic won't just disappear in the numbers required to make a difference and all these closures are doing is pushing the traffic down fewer and fewer routes. Southwark Cyclists were consulted on the proposed closures on Peckham Rye - does it worry you at all that your ex-constituents will now have to bear the brunt of the traffic through the backstreets of Dulwich as cars will no longer be able to turn right from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road? Everyone in Dulwich is being impacted by these closures yet only a very small group is benefitting.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't think you're going to get an answer > Dulwichgirl82... It's very much a growing trend amongst the pro-closure lobby - they come on, throw a load of questions at those who are requesting a more balanced debate, the answers are provided and then they go quiet or try to change the subject. I did notice that KatyKoo did not have any responses to my responses to her questions/points. Increasingly I believe (just like their friends in the council) that they don't want to engage in any debate - they just want to have things all their own way.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich > grove > > has by far the most schools and a nursery > compared > > with these closed roads. As the road that has > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is that > > good? This has made more children?s route to > > school more congested. > > The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich > Grove in September and I think they're monitoring > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & > Dulwich Village. > > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the > junction filters first went in - but it seems to > have settled now and is not that much worse than > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts > will tell. > > Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data > all the time, but then refuse to accept the data > that traffic is high outside peak hours. September...remind me again when the DV closures went in.....;-) So what you're saying is their data is going to be based on one set of monitoring from September (after the schools had gone back) and one set from December. Interesting. I think I can see how they plan to manipulate the figures this time round. The DV northbound closure which will happen before December will lead to a reduction in traffic on East Dulwich Grove -it will of course go elsewhere. Do you see why we are concerned why they were not monitoring BEFORE the closures went in and they are trying to fudge the figures again? Your comment about the traffic "settling back to how it was before the filters went in" is as ludicrous as it is misguided. Cllr McAsh even admitted this week that he was concerned by the traffic increases on East Dulwich Grove.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like > - > > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we > have > > decided that there is a simple fix: we will > remove > > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle > > racks." > > > > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting > on > > the council and councillors as each time there > is > > an article or news report like this more people > > say: "wow, do the council really know what they > > are doing". > > > > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there > was > > no consultation with shop owners and this is an > > utter dereliction of duty on the council's > part. > > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a > > lack of proper consultation. > > Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists > hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another > post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually > include this lobby group in decision making > reports - when TFl will have all necessary data > required. > > Popping onto their website and reading their > campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite > edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich > former councillor until 2018. > He states on his (former) councillor page that he > was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the > fact his name is in the url suggests he is still > heavily involved and he states he lives locally. > > I am possibly the last person to be aware of what > feels a relevant connection. > > Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the > first LTNs that was created there is home to three > local councillors... That's interesting - I didn't realise that. I did wonder why Southwark Cyclists has a postal address on London Wall, E1. Then I looked a bit deeper and it seems the reason is that they are part of the London Cycle Campaign. Now interestingly the London Cycle Campaign proudly claims on their website that they helped invent the term LTNs with Living Streets. Cast your mind back to the East Dulwich CPZ consultations and Living Streets is quoted extensively by the council as they are the ones who came up with the figure that people spend 40% more when the walk to the shops - which formed the basis of the council's lobbying of the local community. It's all worryingly insular and nepotistic if you ask me. It seems the council is deliberately engaging and consulting only with people in their own echo chamber and ignoring the views of the wider community.

KatyKoo - we agree on many things and I think we are all aligned on what the destination needs to be - just we differ massively on the way we get there. I don't think objectors are shouting louder and louder I think the objectors now significantly outnumber those in favour and it is the pro-closure lobby that is trying to convince people the closures are working. Anyway, to address some of your points: ?Proper analysis weighting all transportation modes equally? Agree an equitable approach is needed. The Council recorded an increase in cycling during and since lockdown ? as has happened across London - as people avoid public transport. It is equitable to provide infrastructure for these road users too. As vulnerable road users particularly safety is key. - No one doubts cycling has become more popular - bike sales went through the roof as people, who were being confined to their homes, looked for other ways of getting exercise. You could see lots of families cycling around the local parks. As many people returned to life outside of lockdown so you have seen fewer people cycling and more having to return to cars. It is indeed equitable to ensure roads are as safe for all road users but it is unequitable to close roads to one type of user at the preference of others. Cycling infrastructure has had a huge amount of investment and I talk as someone who used to cycle to Hammersmith for work. There are plenty of very safe routes all across London for cyclists that have not been provided at the expense of other road users. ?Anaylsis to drill down specifically exactly where these cars are going and what they?re doing?. The council have been monitoring traffic in Dulwich throughout the OHS consultation and previous consultations in the area over the years. What they have found is an increase up to 80% on some residential roads. Why do people choose cars over public transport? ? in current circumstances because they are understandably scared of catching covid on public transport. So emergency measures were brought in. - Your comments are not correct. They have been monitoring the roads they wanted to close during the OHS consultations. That is a key point you are omitting. Once they closed the DV junction they put monitoring in on the roads they closed - nowhere else. Surely, if you wanted to provide transparent monitoring you would put it in the roads likely to have received the displacement? By their own admission the council has not had monitoring in the places it needed to be. Cllr McAsh is still trying to get monitoring in on the displacement roads in his ward. The council also found that there had been a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction - which was exposed as a lie so you have to take any stat from the council with a huge pinch of salt. You also caveat that the council said SOME roads has experienced an 80% increase. This means they may have found one or two and I am sure you will agree there are many factors that could contribute to this including some roads have been impacted by navigation apps and also people's shopping habits changed a lot in recent years (and especially during Covid) and there are more and more people turning to home deliveries. The council then needs to implement measures a) b) c) and d)? Agree, except that 'timed restrictions only' don?t address off peak traffic which is also high. - Is there an issue with off-peak traffic? The problem is the council just don't know - they did not do any analysis during any of the OHS consultations that was designed to do anything other than give them a mandate to push ahead with the closures. They did the classic - here is our research to justify our objective. ?School bus services? the foundation buses for private schools already exists and public transport buses for state school pupils. TfL have offered free bus usage for schoolchildren as part of the Covid transport measures ? something I believe One Dulwich opposed? - There are a lot of schools that are not foundation school across the area. The foundation school buses are travelling from across London. What we need are school buses for state schools too. I am shocked by the number of people I see dropping children by car at state school. Whilst we are at it we also need to work with schools to provide transportation for teachers as a lot of teachers drive to school. ?Councillors need to listen to everyone? I believe there were 6 public meetings for the OHS consultation, leafleting, street stalls and both online and hard copy feedback forms along with online commonplace feedback maps. What else do you think they could have done to engage with the community? - I am not sure anyone other those who had the ear of the council would say that their consultations have been anything other than box-ticking exercises. They have been rigged, warped, manipulated and the majority view overlooked time and time again. Only those who have most to gain claim they haven't. We don't need to go over them again but look at the ED CPZ (68% against) consultation as a classic example. The manner in which the council has done these "consultations" or not as the case may be may ultimately be their downfall. ?You are no doubt one of the lucky ones benefitting from the closures?. Not in terms of exactly where I live. But I benefit in that there are some safe routes for walking and cycling now which there weren't before. And I support the measures because I believe the Council has to start somewhere. - But you are. You live in Area B and will be benefitting from the Dulwich Village closure. Talk to any of those people posting on here who live on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane or any one of the roads being impacted by these closures and ask them how things are for them since the closures went in place. And please do not make out that there weren't safe places to walk or cycle before the closures. Since joining the forum your posts have been trying to deposition One Dulwich and any of the others lobbying for more equitable measures. LTNs are a start ? reduce traffic on residential roads, encourage local active travel as an alternative to car use, tackle main roads with TfL (who are responsible for public transport routes). - So you admit that the strategic intent of the closures is to force the problem onto main roads and then let TFL deal with it? I am afraid you have done nothing to convince me that closing roads is going to solve this problem. It won't. It is making things a lot worse and what will happen is that all the measures will come out and then no-one will ever be able to try to tackle the pollution problem again. The council's ham-fisted attempt to deal with the issues will not work and will set the pollution discussion back by years and the sooner the pro-closure lobby realises this the better as digging your heals in is not going to help right now.

Katykoo - I would also go further and suggest that the DV closure gets lifted at the earliest opportunity as that is the one causing the most problems at the moment. But I know, as you told us you live in Area B when you came on here in June to lobby against One Dulwich, that you won?t be happy with that as you are no doubt one of the lucky ones benefitting from the closures whilst a much larger number of people have a negative impact. May I also ask you whether you think that implementing programmes which, at the absolute best (during non-COVID times) deliver a maximum 11% evaporation of car traffic is the best way to deal with the problem of pollution? What is good for road A becomes a much bigger problem for road B - don?t you agree?

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Feel free to troll back through one of these > > threads as I posted my suggestions there a > while > > ago after a pro-closure lobbyist asked me for > my > > ideas. Needless to say that they didn't respond > > which leads me to believe that some of the > ideas > > might not have been so outlandish! ;-) > > I've had a quick scroll but can't find your > suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and > pollution - would you mind posting them again > please? Genuinely interested to see what other > ideas there are on how to reduce cars and > pollution other than what the council are doing. Here you go. Sept 29th. Let me know your thoughts. There definitely needs to be a middle-ground but it requires a more sophisticated approach than the one the council is taking. Everyone recognises that encouraging people out of the car is urgently needed but carpet bombing road closures has never been the solution - that has been obvious to anyone with a small amount of common-sense who could see what was going to happen. The council also needs to be open about their own analysis on displacement as they would have known what was going to happen when they modelled the closures. Additionally: 1. There needs to be proper analysis that starts by weighting all transportation modes equally and is not biased against one form or another (the council starts with an anti-car sentiment and skews everything to their advantage and if you want a true picture of what is happening you have to start neutral). 2. That analysis needs to drill down very specifically what the biggest problem is (we all know this is going to be car use but the council needs to identify exactly where these cars are going and what they are doing) 3. Is the problem commuters? Is the problem school traffic? Is the problem shoppers? Is the problem delivery vehicles or Ubers? Why do people choose cars over public transport. The council does not ever try to ascertain this so has no idea what they are trying to fix. The solution needs to know the problem. 5. The council then needs to implement measures that a) encourages other use beyond the car b) invoke solutions that don't create more problems than they solve c) properly monitor the congestion and pollution impact (good and bad) so there can be transparency during the review d) implement measures that are timed for when they are needed most. 4. Can the council work more closely with schools in the creation of school bus services for all schools? Perhaps the council could divert funds from doing bizarre end of year projects like re-paving streets around East Dulwich to working on a school bus service for each school. I know the US is very different but they have a very effective school bus service. 5. Bottom-line is the council and councillors need to listen to everyone not just the vocal few in their own echo-chamber

The key here is the use of experimental. Can something be experimental when you had been planning for them under an existing programme (OHS)? A legal review could well determine they are not experimental and the ETRO was used to circumvent normal due diligence and review. Legal precedent could be important here and the 2018 case could be significant.

Feel free to troll back through one of these threads as I posted my suggestions there a while ago after a pro-closure lobbyist asked me for my ideas. Needless to say that they didn't respond which leads me to believe that some of the ideas might not have been so outlandish! ;-) There are a lot of ideas in the wider community, from One Dulwich's suggestion of timed closures all the way through to the e-petition to get them torn out. Not sure whether the council will listen to any of them but one thing I will confidently predict is that if the council goes ahead with the next phases, like Townley Road, then those lobbying to get them all removed completely will grow by more and more people and grow louder and louder. The more the council ignores the majority of their residents the more difficult it will be for them to rescue any of this. Of course, if Ealing and Islington's judicial reviews go against the councils every council will look to tear down the closures quicker than they put them in as they all know they will be deemed unlawful. Probably best the council started engaging with their constituents.

Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like - "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we have decided that there is a simple fix: we will remove more parking spaces and replace them with cycle racks." In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting on the council and councillors as each time there is an article or news report like this more people say: "wow, do the council really know what they are doing". We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there was no consultation with shop owners and this is an utter dereliction of duty on the council's part. It may also make the closures unlawful due to a lack of proper consultation.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KatyKoo > "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data > for these roads as they are bus routes." > So that sounds like,despite promising they would > carry out full monitoring of the effect of the DV > junction closre, the Council did not monitor those > roads onto which traffic would be displaced. If > not why not? > > The problem is which way round do you do it if you > want to reduce car usage and pollution > (particularly short car journeys that could be > walked or cycled)? Do you close residential > rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with wider > interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved > public transport... or do you close main roads > first?? Can't see how that would work other than > to push even more traffic onto residential roads. > > As the council explained during the OHS > consultation, the traffic they wished to divert > onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane, > about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic. > This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so > Southwark should have considered the impact. > > You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich > Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton Avenue > are "rat runs" Is that correct? > > Not sure why you are suggesting closing main > roads, is this the council's next secret step? This does come down to what you might define a rat-run. The dictionary describes one as: a minor, typically residential street used by drivers during peak periods to avoid congestion on main roads. I think most rational people's definition of a rat-run is not Dulwich Village, Court Lane, Townley Road or Calton Avenue. Melbourne Grove yes but the others not even close. Most of the aforementioned roads are part of a limited number of east/west routes across Dulwich and it was glaringly obvious what was going to happen when the roads were closed. As we have said numerous times before the best any LTN achieves is 11% traffic "evaporation" leaving the remaining traffic to find another route so it doesn't take a planning genius to have predicted what was going to happen. The fact the council did not put any monitoring or pollution monitoring in on the displacement roads is the smoking gun that demonstrates they knew exactly what was going to happen.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KatyKoo Wrote: > "The next phase of measures are planned to go in > in October - Townley Road will have Timed > Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This > should discourage rat-running. The Council > predicted that further measures would be needed > on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting > the filters in at the Village junction. All > boundary roads are being monitored so that will > provide the evidence." > > What this actually means is more traffic being > diverted onto the main roads, ie Lordship Lane > East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon lane etc. Though at > the moment the timed closures affect only > Northbound traffic on Townley. > > You say that the boundary roads, ie EDG, Lordhip > Lane etc are being monitored. Were they > monitored before the road closure at the DV > junction? My memory is that the they were not but > happy to be corrected. ....chasing the displacement...how the council can forge ahead with more phases when they admit that the first phase is causing issues is beyond belief. They need to halt all of these closures whilst they deal with the mess they have caused with the first Phase Per Cllr McAsh's update the council have requested monitoring and there is no confirmation if the monitoring has been put in place. The council was not monitoring any of the roads prior to the DV closure and only put monitoring in on the roads they closed after the DV closure - yeah, go figure why! ;-) They have no base and, per Cllr McAsh's email update, will be guessing at traffic numbers by comparing with similar roads. It's beyond a farce now. Cllr McAsh's words on monitoring below: LTNs - monitoring Please can you tell us where the council is monitoring car numbers and pollution levels on streets other than those that have been closed? In addition to the roads which have been closed, I have requested that there be monitoring on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street. They are at various stages of monitoring. There are some data from pre-implementation but it is not comprehensive and it is difficult to identify the extent to which changes were caused by the LTN measures relative to city-wide traffic increases resulting from the evolving covid situation. The monitoring will therefore need to look at comparable roads as well as comparing figures before and after implementation.

Is this anticipating the closure of Goodrich outside the school? One of the patterns is that when the council closures a road it ensures it removes a significant number of parking spaces at the same time - thus, no doubt, increasing their ability to lobby for CPZs further down the line!

Cllr McAsh, Thank you for your responses Some more questions for you: PHASES 2,3 and 4 Given your concerns about the negative impact of the Phase 1 closures made in Dulwich Village would you not agree that it would be foolish to proceed with any other phases of the closures until the issues created by the first Phase are resolved? It appears clear that Phases 2, 3 and 4 are designed to do no more than chase the displacement created by the first phase. Surely the negative impact of any closures needs to be properly assessed before more closures are put in place? PHASE 4 In the current Phase 4 plans East Dulwich Road will no longer be accessible from the East or West fork of Peckham Rye. Are you not concerned that this will force more traffic around the back-streets of your ward, further increasing congestion and pollution and will have a negative impact on the lives of your constituents? Why is the council so determined to try and stop East/West travel across Dulwich? Has this been identified as the major cause of traffic through the area? Surely closing these routes (DV junction, Townley Road, Burbage Road, no right turn onto East Dulwich) is just going to force more traffic down other routes like East Dulwich Grove. The issue remains for the council that you cannot close every road and each time you remove a road it places more pressure on the other roads. LTNs - monitoring Is all of the monitoring in now? Will you be willing to share all of the data received to be independently verified - the council doesn't have the best track record in reporting accurate monitoring figures? From what I can gather from your email you are we to assume that you will not have like-for-like numbers for comparison? Why did the council initially decide to only put monitoring in place on the closed roads? Lordship Lane You rightly raise concerns about displacement on East Dulwich Grove and thank you for that as the situation there is untenable but are you also concerned about the impacts on Lordship Lane. Both ends of it, north and south are now awful and the northbound section heading towards Goose Green roundabout is particularly bad and this is having a significant negative impact on the shopping area where a lot of your constituents chose to shop and eat and drink. Are you concerned about this and what, other than removing the closures causing the displacement, can be done? LTNS - public virtual meeting I was suggesting this imminently rather than waiting for the evaluations. When would the council be willing to use a virtual meeting to engage with the Dulwich community? There is a significant weight of public opinion against the closures and 1,500 people signed up to support One Dulwich who are suggesting pragmatic half-way house measures but given the council seems reluctant to engage in discussions about these ideas over 2,400 people have since signed an e-petition to have all the closures removed completely - the council's inaction, and determination to force more closures, is leading people to lobby for the complete removal. E-PETITION Do you know why the e-petition was closed by someone at the council? It has since been re-opened but it would be good to know why it was closed and who closed it. LTNS - consultation, Southwark Cyclists You don't need to consult Southwark Cyclists whether they agree that the closures should be put in place because you know the answer to that already but it looks very bad that the council can find the time to engage with them (and seemingly pander to their every whim and request) and yet cannot engage with the residents directly impacted by the closures. Why does the council need to prioritise the opinions of a cycle lobby group, given them the same level of influence (or maybe even more so)than the emergency services, TFL and refuse collection services? You would have to agree this is, optically, a very bad look for the council especially as both the council and TFL has departments dedicated to cycling and can surely provide the same input? So, why is this group considered so important and are the people the council engaging with at Southwark Cyclists local to the Dulwich area? Finally I can assure you, no-one is asking you to engage in frivolous banter - unless of course you happen to categorise the serious concerns many Dulwich residents have about the closures of roads around the area and the associated traffic displacement and increases in pollution as banter. ;-) Many in the wider Dulwich community just want some answers to questions they are posing due to the negative impacts these closures are having on large parts of our communities. Whilst some of the least populated parts of Dulwich revel in their joy at closed roads and their ability to hold street parties on what used to be a key route through Dulwich others on more densely populated roads are having to live with dangerously high pollution caused by the significantly increased congestion caused by the closures. This is completely untenable and I am, frankly, surprised that any Labour council or councillor is happy to stand back and let this continue.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > it's easy to like road closures It's the impact > on > > the other roads. Congestion, pollution, delays > and > > dangerous roads that we don't want. > > None of which are supported by any evidence other > than "it looked a bit busy on Lordship Lane > today". Reality check: Lordship Lane has always > been busy. But at least pedestrians and cyclists > now have a real alternative. Hopefully it is here > to stay, despite the pathetic rearguard shown > here. Just five posts above yours was a pasting of a post from Cllr McAsh, a key advocate for the closures, who is acknowledging that the closures are causing problems elsewhere. The only rear-guard action here is of the pro-closure lobbyists who continue to insist the closures aren't causing any problems elsewhere and that everything is awesome! It's the type of myopic, deliberately blinkered and unbalanced approach to this that is galvanising so many Dulwich residents to fight it.

Cllr McAsh's comments are very telling and bravo for him sticking his head above the trench. Needless to say there are some things that arise from his post. 1) Cllr McAsh is aware of the big issues that are being caused by the closures (particularly those in Dulwich Village) and the displacement issues impacting his constituents. What is, of course, most interesting is that Cllr McAsh was well aware of what was going to happen when the DV closures came in and it cannot have come as any surprise when, what many of us were predicting would happen did happen. Remember, Cllr McAsh was lobbying for Melbourne Grove closure as part of OHS when it became clear that the DV OHS closure would displace traffic onto EDG. (https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1231554193275736065/photo/1). It didn't take a genius to work out that EDG was going to take the brunt of the displacement traffic from the DV closures. 2) The pro-lobby now can stand down from trying to convince everyone that everything is awesome (sorry Lego movie) and that these closures are not causing any issues. The closures are causing issues and even Cllr McAsh admits as much. Interesting though that he only highlights East Dulwich Grove and whilst I realise the problems on EDG are massive I cannot help but think that he is highlighting that road as he knows that when Dulwich Village gets closed at the roundabout those problems get moved somewhere else. Interesting he doesn't mentioned Lordship lane that will likely take another hit when DV gets closed northbound in the next phase of the closures. 3) Interesting that he reiterate this is a trial and that conclusions can only be reached when the dust settles but the problem with that is that the council is forging ahead with Phase 2/3 and 4 of the closures and creating more dust. Surely if Phase 1 is having such negative effects on his constituents would it not be sensible to hold off on Phases 2/3 and 4 until the dust has settled? Chasing the displacement, as the council is doing, isn't solving the issues it-s moving it elsewhere. Each councillor seems keen to move the problem off their ward. 4) His comment that Covid made it impossible to consult is, as we all know, utter nonsense. We should also remind ourselves that these measures were, supposedly, fast-tracked to support social distancing. See the survey he set-up to lobby constituents for closures: (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSec3c3OCsSboVdTnBrOScgFUz6YjVpU1l7GTdYobFNKZCYdvw/viewform) 5) He says the council will seek feedback from the community. That will be interesting to see how they do that. If they follow their usual path they will only seek input from those people who live on the closed roads and discount input from anyone that doesn't. So the only fair and equitable way is to seek input from the wider East Dulwich community but the last time they did that 68% said they didn't want a CPZ but the council went ahead anyway. 6) What is urgently needed is a bi-directional dialogue between councillors and their constituents not one-side, one-directional updates such as Cllr McAsh has posted. If the council is so happy to pro-actively engage with and take input from Southwark cyclists then they should be doing the same with constituents. The council could very easily organise an online meeting to hear the concerns of their constituents but they chose not to. Cllr McAsh's blog post: The great Labour politician and founder of the NHS, Nye Bevan, once said ?The language of priorities is the religion of socialism?. His visionary politics led to the creation of the modern welfare state. His priority was to protect the most vulnerable from the excesses of capitalism. As a councillor in East Dulwich, the priorities I find myself juggling are not so clear cut. Nowhere is this truer than in the ongoing - and seemingly endless - discussion about traffic management. Here, we need to balance a range of competing interests. Drivers and pedestrians. Residents on main roads and those on the side streets. The needs of our local economy, and the existential threat of climate change. It can be impossible to find a solution that everyone likes so we often settle on the least-worst. This summer we faced a huge challenge. As the lockdown began to ease it became clear that a tiny fraction were using public transport: capacity had dropped and many wanted to avoid it. Meanwhile, more people were driving and more people were cycling. Local authorities across the country faced the same two problems. How to make our roads safe for all types of road users? And how to keep emissions to a minimum? We all reached the same solution: to trial Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN). Low traffic neighbourhoods aim to do two things. First, they try to reduce emissions overall, by encouraging cycling and walking by making the road network safer and more pleasant. In addition, they try to segregate cars from cyclists as much as possible - making it safer for both groups. The ward I represent, Goose Green, has a small number of such measures on the streets around East Dulwich station: various roads which were cut-throughs are now cul-de-sacs, dramatically reducing their motor traffic. Although not in Goose Green, there have been similar - and potentially more significant - changes in Dulwich Village, which have had a knock-on effect in East Dulwich. The goal - to be absolutely clear - is to reduce traffic overall, not simply to move it from one road to another. At the moment, it is hard to measure its success. For a start, we always anticipated a transitional period with higher traffic whilst everyone grows accustomed to the new layout. But more significantly, car-use is rising across London so it is a complex job to assess whether the roads would be better or worse without the new measures. If you?re in a warm room and wear a sweater to go outside, you may still be cooler than you were before but that does not mean the jumper did not warm you. Since these measures were introduced, we councillors have been inundated with comments from residents. Opinion is split: many residents have written to us with tales of their children playing in the street, but others are concerned by increased traffic on nearby roads. We are particularly aware of the issues on East Dulwich Grove. Covid-19 made it impossible to consult as widely as we would like before implementation. So that?s why the measures are only a trial. When the dust settles we will look carefully at the data and seek feedback from the community. At that point the measures can be maintained, amended or removed entirely.

Cineworld has confirmed they will be closing all of their cinemas from Thursday. Really feel for all of their staff and in particular the great teams at the Picturehouse and Ritzy in Brixton.

I suspect Picturehouse is more viable as it has smaller venues and it's clientele is not just motivated by "blockbusters". Also, this leak of the letter is part of the, understandable, lobbying the creative industry is doing to the government for more help. So hopefully it won't come to the temporary closures that are being discussed as it is in no-ones interests for 5,500 being made redundant (even if the expectation is that they would be re-employed when the cinemas are able to reopen).

The rules affecting the creative industries are awful but I think for cinemas the biggest issue is the lack of films being released to draw customers in. It's a vicious circle as movie companies don't want to release anything as they fear it won't recoup the revenue - Bond being the classic example - they need packed cinemas to get a return on investment.

Someone has filed a legal challenge at the High Court for a judicial review of the Ealing Council LTNs. Will be an interesting one to watch because the filing claims the way the council has implemented then is unlawful.

No-one seems to know why it has been closed. It could be because it passed the 500 signature threshold to get it debate by the council but it crossed the 5000 threshold a long time before it was closed. It certainly looks as if someone from the council has gone in and manually closed it as it had been set to run until the end of December. I am sure someone will find out in due course. I am glad that some councillors are now listening, it looks like the community pressure may be starting to have an impact.

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m surprised the residents in dulwich village are > not contacting the council - if I had that traffic > jam and associated increased levels of pollution- > I?d be a bit cheesed off > > Also to add that apparently the businesses have > had a distinct downturn in business I think they have been given a promise that the council will shut DV to through traffic at the roundabout. That's part of the phase 2 plans I think.

FairTgirl, did you get the sense those councillors who spoke to the shopkeepers were actually going to do anything about it? Or did you sense they were just paying lip service? I do wonder if any councillors are allowed to have an opinion beyond the party line. Unfortunately, the council e-petition that you link to has been closed by the council. No one knows why but the suspicion is the Cabinet Member for Positive Communication, Misinformation and Statistical Manipulation became aware of it and ordered it to be shut down! Still the 2441 people who signed it know they at least tried to register their annoyance at the way the council has been behaving!