Rockets

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're conflating displacement (where the same > amount of traffic is moved from Route A to Route > B) and evaporation (where some vehicle journeys > previously made on the now inaccessible Route A > are made by alternative means - the active travel > plans obviously focus on cycling and walking but > it could also be car-sharing, public transport or > simply that people change their habits - for > example only driving to the shops once a week > rather than three times). > > Hammersmith Bridge is quite a good example, it's > been closed long enough to have some reasonably in > depth assessment done on surrounding traffic and > pollution levels. > > https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/p/179/traffic > -evaporation > https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/has-closing-ha > mmersmith-bridge-really-improved-london-s-air-qual > ity-4731 > > There's a PDF of a metadata study on the subject > here which, although rather wordy, also manages to > keep the maths to a minimum. > https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019- > 05-23-5343-Disappearing%20traffic%20-%20the%20stor > y%20so%20far.pdf > > There's a reasonable chunk of data and info from > places like Hackney and Waltham Forest which have > had similar measures (back when the popular term > was Mini-Holland) for a lot longer than Dulwich as > well. Yes and for those who live on the route to Hammersmith bridge they have seen a huge decrease in traffic but speak to those living near the neighbouring bridges and they will tell you an altogether different story.... Exdulwicher - what is a realistic figure for evaporation in situations like we are seeing in Dulwich. My feeling is that of you're lucky to might get 10% of people switching (during summer months).

The fact that the protagonists for these changes continue to use the phrase traffic evaporation does make me chuckle....everyone knows that anything that evaporates then condenses and falls elsewhere....perhaps wonderfully highlighting beautifully the folly of these closures. They just push the problem elsewhere. And the point on Amsterdam is well made, a very different proposition to London yet continually heralded as the answer. Anyone who bothers to scratch beneath the surface would see that whilst it is a beacon of what can be done when traffic planning embraces all modes of transport you can't apply it to London in any form.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ideas around streets are changing. If the > street is a living space where people can do a > mixture of things it is no longer simply a highway > with parking space. I know this subject is highly > charged and I don't want to add fuel to the fire. > But it is worth imagining the way streets could > change. > > The idea of traffic 'evaporation' is well > documented and worth believing in. > > https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evapora > ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods- > on-main-roads/ And anyone who studied geography will tell you when something evaporates it condenses and then falls as rain elsewhere....which is exactly what these closures cause....

Has the school approved this version of the plan as I thought they had told the council they didn't think their plans were going to help with the problem they were trying to address and actually make matters worse? I had also heard the majority of the school's teachers drive and park locally and we're worried about the impact.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm being mostly tongue in cheek but as someone > who's desperately trying to hang on to her job, > keep the people I am working for happy, work > efficiently but still mostly from home and > desperately trying not melt in this heat, I can't > help but feel as if people have way too much time > on their hands to be ratcheting up the pressure > and counter-pressure to this level! > > A lot of people are bored and frustrated. > Furloughed or WFH, schools are now properly on > holiday too, a lot of people will have had foreign > holidays cancelled or changed and it's lovely > weather. So basically a lot of people with a lot > of time on their hands. > > Most of the time it's fairly harmless - someone > walking round on stilts is a bit eccentric but not > really an issue. Having impromptu music gatherings > and Strictly Come Dancing re-enactments without > thinking about the fact that, y'know there is > still a global pandemic and this is still a ROAD > and people still want to travel along it is > towards the more selfish end of the spectrum. I > doubt anyone has even thought of it has an event > or campaigning - to them it'll just be "a bit of > harmless fun". > > It's that national lack of common sense on display > again. Completely agree. As ever everything becomes so polarised, on the one hand someone cuts the monitoring strips thinking that will somehow scupper the programme or to make a childish point and on the other you have a group who are trying desperately to force turning a grotty bit of tarmac into a village square and an epicentre of entertainment to help their narrative. Both great examples of the extremes of the argument and neither of which reflect the views of most of the people on either side of it.

I agree, seems very heavy handed to do both at once without assessing the impact of one. I wonder if the council need to raise all the funds they can due to Covid impact and are desperate to get some cash heading their way.

Perhaps Cllr McAsh might revisit the forum and grace us with his thoughts as it is clear that since the barriers went up traffic and pollution has increased significantly across his ward. One presumes that he is concerned about the increases in traffic caused by these closures.

Can anyone provide rationale as to why the CPZ measures are currently needed, especially given than most of the roads impacted are now going to have permeable filters? Since Covid started, and given this is likely the new normal for well into the New Year, is parking continuing to be a problem? Surely the money being spent on this could be channelled more effectively elsewhere to have a more positive impact?

If they want to organise events in the middle of the road good luck to them. I think the images that come from it powerfully communicate and resonate why this closure is completely ludicrous, self-serving and benefiting a few of the local (wealthy) residents whilst causing chaos and havoc for everyone else and I don't see anything in the videos they put out that doesn't scream that! Don't get it banned - it's a very powerful visual metaphor! ;-)

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The goings on at that junction are annoying now > - there was some sort of musical duet there a > couple of > > weeks ago, people standing around. It's still a > road - there were still cyclists and pedestrians > and a > > couple of people on mobility scooters looking to > get through it all and finding it quite difficult, > > > especially to maintain social distancing. Not > going to be long before some idiot dancing in the > "square" > > collides with a scooter or cyclist and blames > the legitimate road user. > > As I pointed out, interesting to see our > Councillor turn up to support. Southwark Events > have confirmed that the organisers have no licence > to use this space as none are being issued under > Covid measures. > See above posting Yesterday, 08:02PM. Which councillor - James McAsh?

He hasn't been answering questions on anything for some time...not just the closure of DV which he supported and actively used to lobby the residents of Melbourne Grove to gain support and lobby for his proposed closures of said road......

Is that why we haven't heard from Cllr McAsh in such a long time? ;-)

Jet-A1 fuel has very distinctive exhaust smell and as someone who has lived under the flighpath of both Heathrow and City airport for many years I have never noticed it. Are you sure it is aircraft fumes - I presume it was an an aircraft approaching to land? Remember most aircraft on approach are essentially gliding and the engines are pretty much in idle - although many will have reached the bottom of their descent over here and might be using power before they lock onto the localiser and glideslope a few miles west of here (for Heathrow).

I love the way they celebrate the fact the "Square" has been created whilst the newly-created A-road that is Dulwich Village roars in the background. I may be tempted to complain that they are blocking a major cycle route with these events....;-)

Interesting discussion with a cab driver today - he was saying that a some of the "Covid" road closures are being removed in East London (East Ham area) due to push back from local residents....the council there has realised they are causing more problems than solving.....

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is significant opposition across London from > residents impacted by these changes. The Uber > driver I was talking too lived in Brixton and he > said it was a nightmare around there due to local > closures and that he wished residents would set-up > something like One Dulwich. > > Most of the surveys being done nationwide by a > variety of means (online, social media, by post) > are returning an average of about 5:1 in favour of > low traffic neighbourhoods. It also acknowledges > that the "1" part of that are likely to be much > more vocal than the "5" part so the initial > impression of everyone being against it is often a > case of a shouty minority. > > Again, this is an average of the schemes > nationwide; I've seen outliers as well - Islington > were claiming 90% in favour on a survey they did > although that was 10,000 posted leaflets and a > response of about 350 so that upsets my data OCD. > > There's a councillor in Hackney, Jon Burke > (@jonburkeUK on Twitter) who's worth a follow for > some good updates of their LTN and the general > ideas behind it. Our own James McAsh is also on > Twitter, @mcash although much less active on > there. Less about traffic and LTNs. But this is much more than a shouty minority - and in the spirit of balance, and as I am sure you will agree, there is a very vociferous shouty minority on the other side of the fence too. The fact that OneDulwich and OneOval have appeared and are getting lots of support shows the reality of what is happening out there and it demonstrates this is now far more than a shouty minority. You quote 5:1 but research is so very skewed to the narrative that cars are bad. Just take a look at Southwark's Street Space website - it's very difficult to post anything other than a "cars are evil" response on there. To say the council and TFL ask leading questions is probably the understatement of the century. I think your Islington example speaks volumes. Also, if you ask anyone "do you want a quieter street" everyone says yes because, much like Cllr McAsh canvassing around Melbourne Grove ahead of these closures, no-one ever tells them what the real impact will be. The playing field is now being levelled by the likes of One Dulwich so everybody can have a voice - for too long too many have been ignored or positioned as a shouty minority. That's changing and the councillors and council are realising that.

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The is a oneoval too. There they highlight how the > decision makers live in the new traffic free areas Ooops, this might not end well for Labour councillors - the optics are all wrong and they appear to be turning their backs on the traditional Labour voter (which cost them the last election).

Are the rumours true that a couple of the councillors pushing the closures actually live on the roads benefiting most from the changes in DV? I heard at least one of them had been lauding the likely increase in house prices to their neighbours ahead of the closures whilst lobbying for support!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oval have actually said who's allowed rather > than > > who's banned > > > > > https://twitter.com/LambethCyclists/status/1288552 > > > 299908997123/photo/1 > > They've got these signs on the Dulwich planters > now I believe. Ha ha...the council spent money to put new signs on them - probably had a focus group on the best language to use and not be so negative and combative!!! ;-) The council must have money to splash around, who is funding them......;-) I can see why the residents of the Oval are up in arms - closing Fentiman Road will have a huge impact and funnels traffic away from lots of big expensive houses along that road creating huge issues for others. This is collective political suicide by our local councils and councillors and I think they have massively misjudged the public and how they would react. For each person heralding this as a great thing there are hundreds more who are being negatively impacted. It would have been so much better to be more balanced and now the public are turning against these measures in their thousands and I worry that this will actually set the anti-congestion, pollution and road safety discussion back years and years.

There is significant opposition across London from residents impacted by these changes. The Uber driver I was talking too lived in Brixton and he said it was a nightmare around there due to local closures and that he wished residents would set-up something like One Dulwich. These road closures are fast becoming a political hot potato and it is going to be interesting to see how local councils and the Mayor's office deal with it. It is clear this will impact future local elections and from what I have seen the majority of people are against them - or at least against such ill-thought out and counter-productive measures. The govt is very cleverly putting the powers in the hands of local authorities knowing full well that this is not going to win any votes. Just look at how little we now hear from Cllr McAsh - remember he was one of the leading cheerleaders for the closures and was actively canvassing Melbourne Grove in favour of them - local politicians know that this is likely to cost them their seats such is the mess they have created.

I think we can surmise that Jimlad48 doesn?t know anyone that has been badly impacted by this. If he had one suspects that he would take a different view. This isn?t a matter of days or weeks, this is robbing many families of years with loved ones. Yes many, if not most, have cormobidities but it is wrong, and utterly insensitive, to say that they would have died soon anyway. Wearing masks is about protecting others from you - but for many, caring about others isn?t high on their agenda... jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I'll choose to go to the one that > doesnt enforce mask wearing. > > Wear one if you want to, but I'm tired of the > hysterical overreaction, attack on our civil > liberties all because of a bug that is doing what > bugs do and having a clear out of the vulnerable > who always die of these things. Sorry, bluntly > put, we're screwing our economy to buy a week or > two extra for people with severe life limiting > illnesses anyway. > > Meanwhile the NHS is being forced to delay all > manner of treatments for plenty of other > conditions, which could be saved because of COVID. > How many people are going to die who could have > been saved because we're trying to protect those > who are likely on their way out anyway? > > I am utterly fed up of watching friends businesses > collapse, people end up unemployed, education > suffer all to protect a tiny minority of people. > The cases nationally are miniscule, but we've > essentially chosen to bankrupt the country and put > future generations in debt to protect people on > the basis of some very dodgy science and statistic > use and a set of guidelines thare nonsensical. > > I'd take it more seriously if it was blanket masks > everywhere, but its not - the guidance makes no > sense, its being invented on the hoof and relies > on stupidity like refusing permission to go to a > friends house, but allowing you to meet them in > Nandos for dinner - this is neither coherent nor > sensible. Meanwhile Cummings and his ilk get away > with anything they want... > > Give us back normal life and let those who want to > take precautions and others do as they wish.

Someone has cut the one at the top of Court Lane too by the looks of things. Mr Chicken, if the person who cut them, if it was someone cutting them, lives locally then I am sure they have registered their support for One Dulwich but you seem to be trying to discredit the group by association. Yet more deliberate public depositioning of the group and their supporters - what are you afraid of? Interestingly I was in an Uber recently and the driver was passionately telling me that the restrictions in the area were ludicrous and how all the Uber drivers hate them and how he would like to move the planters. He was joking, of course, but there seems to be more evidence pointing to him than One Dulwich.....I hasten to add he hadn?t heard of One Dulwich.....;-) P.S. If anyone has noticed a dearth of Ubers in the area recently the driver told me drivers are avoiding areas with road closures as it makes it difficult to get to fares due to the congestion caused around the closures.

Good luck Theo - it's a great initiative. Try and get some publicity for your project - it's much harder to try and stop something if a lot of people know about it!

Bekacs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bekacs Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > See this twitter thread. It really does sound > > like > > > Everyone Active have demonstrated to the > > council > > > through video tours, that they are ready to > > open, > > > and the council are essentially now refusing > to > > > comment. > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lb_southwark/status/1287760648 > > > > > > 366182402 > > > > Can Cllr McAsh shed any light as to what is > > happening here? > > > I emailed him yesterday. Is he on this forum? He used to be but he hasn't been on here much since the council's road closures were implemented....;-)

Ampersand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > No co-incidence is it that since the closures > came > > into place Lordship Lane and the A205 have been > > snarled up most times of the day? East Dulwich > > Grove has seen a noticeable increase in the > amount > > of traffic, but, of course, because the council > > aren't monitoring those places they have no > data > > to show what is actually happening. How > > convenient. > > > > I live next to the A205. My living room windows > look out onto the stretch of the South Circular > that runs up the hill from the Grove Tavern to the > Horniman Museum and this assertion is basically > untrue. I?m currently working from home and have > regular opportunities to look out of the window. > The traffic is no busier than it always has been. The issue is at the junction of the A205 and Lordship Lane at Grove Tavern (either turning right from the Lane onto the A205 or left in the opposite direction). It used to be bad during rush-hour - now it is bad all the time (and that's without the school traffic).