Rockets

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tiddles Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets - spot on > > > You do realise this is what happens when you close > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where > congestion increases before it decreases. Google > it. 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need to it was in the links you sent earlier....in fact, if you had bothered to read the document links you sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there was a significant net increase in traffic on the roads not closed and this did not go down. Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village has 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys are then made by other means - are you sure the other roads that are not closed can accommodate another 6,000 car movements per day? And that is just one junction. Then throw in the other changes going in on Melbourne Grove, Townley etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove. Do you see the problem a lot of us are concerned about - this isn't sovling a problem it's creating a much bigger one? It's classic traffic evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere else.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need to have fewer car trips in London. It?s > really simple. You?re either pro low traffic > stuff. Or you?re pro more car congestion. Well it looks like the pro-low traffic lobby are actually creating more congestion. Go figure..... Are people not allowed to acknowledge that there needs to be fewer car journeys in London but not agree with the cack-handed way the council is going about it?

Please, please stop quoting from two decade old reports - it appears to be the go-to "proof" that this is going to magically fix everything. It won't. And here is why and I am going to, somewhat hypocritically, quote from one of the two decade old reports you linked to to illustrate the point...;-) It says: In half of the case studies, there was a 11% reduction in number of vehicles across the whole area where roadspace for traffic was reduced, including the main roads. 11% - that scarily low magic number that makes you ponder what happens to the other 89% of traffic that used to use those routes......and the residents of Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and anyone trying to use the A205 can probabyl give you a clue where it has gone and will continue to go.... And remember the trials like the oft heralded Waltham Forest were isolated, one area doing it which meant cars just went a different way. If you click through to the Waltham Forest report you will see that traffic increased massively on surrounding roads during the initial trial (up by as much as 158% in some cases) and then continued to register much greater traffic numbers after the full works were done. Can the streets around Dulwich absorb huge increases in traffic flow because of the closures - has the council even modelled this?

Ex - depends on who you speak to!!! It's either nirvana or armageddon and nothing in between! ;-)

Cllr McAsh - welcome back, I do hope the family emergency has been resolved and that you had a good summer. Some questions for you: - It has been two months since the Dulwich Village closures were put in place and due to these closures traffic has increased significantly along routes through your ward leading to, at times, severe congestion and increasing pollution. Are you concerned by the negative impact this is having on your constituents? - Please can you tell us where the council is monitoring car numbers and pollution levels on streets other than those that have been closed? It seems the council placed monitoring on the closed roads to be able to show how much traffic decreased but have done little monitoring on the roads where displacement is taking place. If monitoring has been put in on displacement roads when did the monitoring start? - When the emergency planning for these closures was being discussed what roads did the council identify as likely to bear the brunt of the displaced traffic? - Given the lack of a consultation process and the inability to have public meetings would you be supportive of a online virtual meeting hosted by all the councillors across the area to present to the community your thoughts and rationale behind the closures and to receive questions (using something like Slido would be a good way for constituents to submit questions to avoid it becoming a free for all). - Is it correct that the council is targeting a 50% reduction in car usage in the area and how is it going to monitor it across the whole area? It looks as if other projects have netted about an 11% reduction in car use (and that was before Covid) so are these closures just the tip of the iceberg or are the council setting unrealistic goals?

The issue remains that similar projects (and I hasten to add projects that were implemented before Covid and before people were wary of returning to public transport) have netted about an 11% reduction in car use, meaning that 89% of the journeys merely are being done via other routes. The reason they are having to close off the roads around Grove Vale is that when they close Melbourne Grove all the cars will try to find another route. They are chasing the displacement. Close one road here, the cars go there so you close that road too. This then funnels even more traffic down the main roads massively increasingly the pollution as more cars spend time idling in traffic for longer - it has been happening for the last two months only EDG and Lordship Lane since the DV closures. The closures in Dulwich Village are funnelling traffic along East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane as the council is trying to prevent east west travel through Dulwich and it will get even worse when they close Townley, Burbage, Turney and the north/south route through Dulwich Village with East Dulwich taking the brunt of it.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebestnameshavegone Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Spartacus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The good thing about this change of heart > from > > > Shapps is that councils will now need to > > consult > > > on changes rather than dictate to their voters > > > > > > > It may still result in the same changes > > occurring > > > but at least people will feel that they've > had > > > their input to the process. > > > > > > Do you remember when you voted for your local > > councillors? That was when you had 'input to > this > > process'. > > We are only a democracy at that point you put your > vote in the box, that's why you should vote for > someone you trust to do as they say and have a > moral compass. But hang on a minute....two years ago when we voted for our councillors there was a clearly defined process for such closures which involved a "consultation" process. As Cllr McAsh admits the council (at the behest of central government I hasten to add) are now doing things backwards - putting the closures in place and then doing the consultation...which is a bit like announcing a new prime minister and then asking for the people to vote on whether they agree with it or not - which as far as I am aware isn't used anywhere globally as part of a democratic process.... Of course, the concern for the councillors must be that an 18 month trial period takes us pretty much to the next council elections....

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it's accurate to portray this debate > as the privileged few living on now quieter roads > vs. everyone else. There are lots of people > (myself included) who don't live on these roads > but welcome the opportunity to get around locally > and access these streets on foot and bike because > they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I > genuinely hope that over time, there will be > enough people who think differently about local > travel because ?there are too many cars on the > road, creating too much pollition. We are all > selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us > better, that's how this works. I think it is fair, however, to say that one of the consequences of the closures in Dulwich Village in particular is that they are displacing a lot of traffic away from some of the least populated parts of the area and are causing congestion and additional pollution on roads that pass through some of the most densely populated parts of the area.

Turning right at The Harvester from Lordship Lane onto the A205 is like a February Monday 7.45 morning school drop off time with traffic queuing from near Upland Road. And that was at about 3pm this afternoon. The traffic on the A205 coming towards the Harvester was queuing beyond the lights at the college. We were dropping one of our children for a play date with a family who live near the college and they were very supportive of the council's plans to restrict traffic but said that they, and other residents who had been personally canvassed by Margy Newens, now feel they are going too far with this second wave of closures and are particularly concerned about the DV timed closures and the fact that they are starting to feel a bit cutoff and are worried about the increase in traffic. As my wife so beautifully put it..."that's the problem with this council, they dangle the carrot, you take a bite and then they smack you round the back of your head with a suede".

AylwardS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic in the area seems worse but schools have > just returned and traffic and public transport is > always quieter during school holidays so yes the > permeable barriers have probably had some impact > but won?t be responsible for everything we are > seeing. > > Also it?s only day two - I saw three cars indicate > to turn into the roads and then change their > minds. I saw another three try to cut through > Melbourne Grove / Elsie Road from EDG only to turn > around and come back out further back in the queue > of traffic than they were. > > How many of those cars didn?t need to be used on > that journey? Yes there are some who need to > travel by car or times a car is needed but there > are also journeys that could be walked / cycled. > Maybe those people will leave their cars at home > so those that need to drive can complete their > journey in a more reasonable time. It?s going to > take time for people to change the habits of a > lifetime of taking the car to Lordship Lane to > walking for 15 minutes. > > We like Venice and travel often but it took us by > surprise to not call a taxi or going shopping > without the car, now we plan where we stay so the > route has the least bridges to carry our suitcases > over. We understand why the flats we rent have > shopping trolleys and the supermarkets have places > for you to leave them. > > It won?t happen overnight but people might cut > back the amount of driving they do. 10%. That's all these schemes give you as a maximum. 10% car use reduction and that's probably summer figures before the days draw in and the weather turns inclement - and remember there's a good 6 months of that staring at us around the corner. How long will it take to "settle down". It's been over two months since the original DV closures went in and there has been no sign of things settling in - the traffic was as bad as ever and is now worse since the schools have gone back. The council's solution? Chase the displacement and close off Dulwich Village completely during certain times of the day.# 10% - is it worth the negative impacts elsewhere?

Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do a lot of people drive to Melbourne Grove to > visit the shops there? I would assume most people > walk. Well by the tone of the petition set up by the owner of Therapy on Melbourne Grove one suspects not. What you have to realise is that the businesses on Melbourne Grove are not high footfall businesses - their catchment area for customers tends to be much wider and so they rely on people travelling from across the area. Notice how along Melbourne Grove there have always been parking bays that allow, if I am not mistaken 30 minutes or one hour parking outside the shops - which suggests at some point the council acknowledged that these businesses needed parking spaces for their customers. Which, of course, would suggest that many of their customers use cars to get there. Perhaps pop down to Melbourne Grove and ask some of them? Rahrahrah - what makes you think the businesses will do better - and please do not quote that flawed council stat that people spend 40% more when they walk or cycle propaganda the council amplified during the CPZ consultation? Melbourne Grove has always been a bit of an outlier for shops in the area due to the lack of footfall so I can't see how this is going to help them.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emergency first response paramedic car stuck in > the gridlock... Only adding as it was blaring out > it sirens for a good few minutes and I was trying > to record a presentation. Gridlock continues both > lanes now. Can Rahrahrah bring his magic wand to > make it all disappear? Heartblock - we all feel for you. Many of us have been asserting that for every one of the people dancing joyously in the Margy Square in Dulwich Village or those heralding how cyclists have reclaimed the streets from cars that there were many more being negatively impacted by the displacement from these closures and it looks like you are getting the brunt of it. I would consider contacting Cllr McAsh - we give him a hard time on here but he will want to hear from people who are on the negative impact side of the closures. We all need to assert pressure on the council to show that it is not all sunshine and flowers now they have closed these roads and that even though they present "survey" results that show how tremendously happy people are on the closed roads that there is a majority who are not.

Rahrahrah - quick, get on your bike with the magic traffic evaporation tool you have developed to clear the streets - it worked wonders yesterday....;-)

Closing this one, the message has been made, and there's plenty of similar threads - Admin One of the shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove has set-up a petition against the road closures around their shop. The link is below for those interested. https://www.change.org/p/helen-hayes-help-us-not-to-get-road-closure-in-east-dulwich?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=b9ef0770-e198-11ea-a32a-a7c05e9e4c3f

Here is Cllr McAsh's update in full...make of it what you will but there are plenty of lines to read between and there is quite a bit of getting his defence in early.... Interesting he acknowledges there are being problems caused by the measures - although he is clearly trying to position it as a bedding in/generic increase in traffic perspective. You can leave a comment on his blog too...might be a good way for some of those missing their communication channel on here to give some input. ELECTING A NEW COUNCIL LEADERSHIP On Monday 7th September the Labour Group (which includes all Southwark Labour Councillors) will host its AGM. Cllr Peter John has not stood for re-election as Leader so we will soon have a new leader of Southwark Council. A hustings was organised for local Labour Party members on 2nd September and Labour Group will have a further hustings on Saturday the 5th. It would be interesting to hear from Labour members who attended the hustings about who they preferred for the post. The council?s AGM will be on the 16th September. Posts elected there will be in place until next May. LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS Like many local authorities around London and the country, Southwark has implemented a number of ?low traffic neighbourhood? (LTN) measures, including in Goose Green. What is an LTN? The idea behind an LTN is to encourage cycling and walking, and discourage car use. This is achieved by closing some roads to motor vehicles, and making others accessible from only one end - thereby removing it as a through-route but maintaining car access. The latter measure has been, or will shortly be, implemented in five locations in Goose Green: Melbourne Grove north (near Grove Vale), Melbourne Grove south (between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove), Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent. There are others nearby in Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Village wards. Why now? LTNs have existed for many years but they have become much more common in recent months. Why? Social distancing rules mean that fewer people are using public transport. Journeys which were previously taken by bus are now taken by car, by bike or on foot. But increased car traffic makes the other two options less safe, less pleasant and therefore less appealing. LTNs attempt to rebalance this and encourage ?active transport? - which is much healthier and much more environmentally friendly. The process Normally when the council alters the road layout it would first go through a lengthy consultation - like in the case of the controlled parking zone. However, covid made this impossible. Reduced staff capacity and limitations created by the lockdown and social distancing rules made it hard to run any consultations effectively. And, in this case, there was a need to act quickly: as lockdown lifts new habits will set in so if the roads become inhospitable to pedestrians and cyclists this will be harder to change later. So most councils, including Southwark, opted to implement the measures as ?emergency? orders. This means that they can be in place for up to 18 months. After this, they may become permanent, but that will depend on how successful they are. What do residents think? Despite restrictions on council-wide consultations, we councillors did put out a survey. It was only circulated digitally but, given this, the response was relatively good. We shared the results in the last newsletter but they are here again for reference. In summary: residents on these four streets were overwhelmingly supportive of the measures. However, we have also received complaints and criticisms of the measures - primarily from those living on nearby streets. Evaluation It is inevitable that there will be initial problems caused by the LTN measures. Many road users are still unaccustomed to the measures and try to go through streets which they can no longer use as a through-route. This means that the traffic on the streets they can use has risen. This is exacerbated further by the general increase in car traffic that we have seen across London. The hope is that when everyone becomes used to the new roads, the number of cars (and the associated pollution) will prove to be lower than it would have been without the measures. At the moment, it is too early to tell. We will also evaluate the impact from an equalities perspective: even if the community benefits as a whole we still want to know who are the ?winners? and ?losers? from the measures.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's pretty clear to me that there is not the > widespread gridlock some people are claiming. > There are high levels of traffic during rush hour, > but it was always so. I do wonder whether the > temporary respite caused by the lockdown has led > people to forget what the roads were like before. By that argument are you now saying that actually the supposed increase in traffic caused by Covid (and remember this was the catalyst for these closures apparently) has not materialised therefore negating the need for the closures?

To be honest if I was James I would probably not be coming on here; such is the level of negative sentiment towards the council over these changes he would be on a hiding to nothing and he would become the focal point of residents' ire at the council. It's why I suspect some other councillors are happy to be anonymous. Credit where credit is due James did engage on this platform for quite a while but the optics of his withdrawal are not good - especially when he was drumming up support for the changes via EDF. He also has the most to lose. As an ardent advocate and campaigner for the changes he seemed oblivious to the negative impact it was going to have on his own constituents. Councillors like Margy in Duwlich Village can grandstand with her neighbours to show what a positive impact she has had on Dulwich Village and those people in the Village who are benefiting from this will vote for her again. For James it is far more complicated and he is probably worried about his re-election as he hit us with the CPZ and now this at no time has he paid any attention to the majority view and has done nothing to fight any of these changes. He hasn't been seen on here for over 6 weeks and he has probably been on holiday and been busy with his union and school activities but I suspect his absence is more to do with not wanting to stick his head above the OHS trench!

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ed_pete Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bstch 3 - approved. Cameras to stop traffic > > heading north through Dulwich Village at peak > > times. Also aame on Townley to stop traffic > > exiting to EDG 8-10 , 3-6 > > > > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail > > > s.aspx?ID=7153 > > Re Townley, that's a step in the right direction > but the biggest problem on Townley Road is the > parents dropping kids off at Alleyn's, and it > doesn't sound that will achieve that. It needs to > be no traffic at all at those hours. Except I > suppose for the coaches. They are a nuisance too, > but kids have to get to school somehow! But why - Townley is probably the least populated road in the whole of the area - why deem it ok to close that to force traffic along more populated routes to sit in traffic? It makes no sense unless you are hellbent on preventing any east/west travel across Dulwich. What is the issue you see with Townley currently - all I can see is that there is a problem at drop and pick-up time but it is next to three large schools so surely that is to be expected?

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To me this document states Southwark will use > covid lockdown (which we're out of for now) to > expedite plans to reduce car use by 50% in the > Borough. Its a bold target, being executed poorly, > and with little/no consultation of Southwark's > constituents. > > http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s898 > 03/Report%20Streetspace%20Plan.pdf > > So yes, a war on car use, certainly. QUTOE: Southwark?s Streetspace Plan advises that the council should aspire to maintain 50% less driving than before lockdown to meet our climate change commitment, to maintain as many transport, health and environmental benefits as possible, and to help create a modal shift to active modes. The reality is that to reach their 50% target reduction they have to attack the areas where car ownership is highest in the borough. We have heard time and time again from both the council and the anti-car lobby that "only 40% of Southwark residents have access to a car" as if it is some sort of crime and something to be ashamed of. Of course, car ownership is driven by socio-economic factors but it is also driven by location and accessibility to transport and what those who tout the figure miss is that a very high percentage of the borough's residents live within walking distance of one of the 8 tube stations in the borough and have much better transport links than in Dulwich. Is car ownership for this area really that high? Compare it to neighbouring Bromley or Croydon and you will see that it is in line. or lower, when compared with similar parts of suburban Greater London. People need cars in this part of the city. For the last few years the council has been attacking the Dulwich area and its perceived high car ownership rates (attacking perceived wealth also sat well with the Labour party's hard-left leaning approach before the election). First they extended double-yellow lines to make it more difficult to park, then they forced through a CPZ and now they are blockading large swathes of the area to make it more difficult to get on with day-to-day life for those who need to use a car. To get anywhere near a 50% reduction in car use things will have to get an awfully lot worse as the current closures may reduce car use by 10% (at an absolute maximum) given the lack of transport links in this part of London. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the lives of the residents across the area will be, in the main, negatively impacted by these changes whether they own a car or not, but we are all collateral damage in this game.

Cue the music....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - I posted a few photos from each spot. I > haven?t faked, edited or ?selected? to fit a > narrative. At the end of the day you can?t take > photos showing no cars where there is back to back > gridlock. I know we?re in an era of alternative > facts, but ultimately there is an objective, > observable reality, whether it?s convenient or > not. But you have selected spots that aren't the worst affected haven't you? You do realise as well that this thread now becomes a Tony Hart gallery of gridlock or clear roads.....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take a walk yourself. Either there is back to back > gridlocked traffic or there isn?t. I have been > straight forward, I?m not putting time stamps on > my photos, just get of your sofa and go have a > look. There are two spots where traffic was heavy > as described. The worst congestion is definitely > heading south from the library. Whether this is > worse than before or not people may disagree, but > to my mind this was always a hotspot during rush > hour. I was joking about the time-stamps.....;-) But I did get off my sofa, as you so nicely put it, and ran through the village, saw the traffic, posted a comment and then you replied with a contradictory response as if you are desperate to prove there isn't an issue.....I remind you.... Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe some schools have gone back today and as > I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at > around 7.30am there was stationary traffic from > the Village roundabout going northbound all the > way to the East Dulwich Grove junction. The folly > of these closures is there for us all to see and > we know the council is going to try and close the > village northbound to chase the displacement away > from the area but these closures are not working > and are creating far worse problems than before. Rahrahrah: I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at 7:30. It was pretty quiet. So what's this mean?

Rahrahrah - enough with the photos! You took at least 40 photos (your IMG numbers tell a tale) and shared a selection of them with us - what's to say you weren't a bit selective about which ones you shared - perhaps get them time-stamped as well next time as you could have been waiting for quiet moments or waited until the light phasing was in your favour ;-) But please don't interpret that as a request to see all the others....;-) We aren't imagining what we see.....and nothing you post on here is going to convince anyone about what is actually going on in reality. I do have to say you have been remarkably skilled with your photos - the roads are so quiet it looks like Christmas Day there is so little traffic! If that is the case I am sure the council will be letting us all know what a tremendous success the closures have been pretty quickly.

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Metallic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Yet people on this thread are claiming that > > > > Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?! > > > > > > I went to look this morning. Yes, back to > back > > to > > > back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans. > > > > What fun to breathe that in if you live in > > those > > > cottages opposite the Dog. > > > > I passed through the Village on foot at 8:30 > this > > morning and it was extremely quiet. What time > were > > you there? > > > > It seems that some people are claiming that all > > the traffic has been diverted from the Village > to > > the South Circular and others are claiming the > > Village is at a stand still with back to back > > traffic. Meanwhile people are pointing to maps > > published in the Mail. > > > > Walk over there and just see for yourselves. > > > I took a video at 8.47 this morning on Dulwich > Village. Solid traffic from Gallery Road > roundabout to the EDG lights. You must've just > missed it rah, most vehicles were vans and lone > commuters which perhaps explains andrewc's photos; > not parents living down the road but working > people who maybe unlikely or unable to change > their commute. My kid is injured so we tried > hopping on a bus but they weren't letting kids on > - presumably shielding other bus users - which > reduces options for those further afield or with > multiple school drop offs. Yes they appear to be running one bus for kids and one bus for everyone else - which makes planning a journey by bus even more challenging if you travel on a school route.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today at 3.45pm Go take a look on Google Maps just an hour later - bet the pictures you could take if you went there now aren't quite so car free now. College Road is red, the A205 is red/black back to Rosemead School travelling eastbound, Dulwich Village is red/black, EDG is red/black, all of Lordship lane is red.....