Rockets

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).

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?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A bit of a reality check here. The only change is > that from Court Lane or Calton avenue, you have to > go round. It's a few more minutes. South circular > is often snarled up, that's nothing to do with > these changes. 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. And please, do not give me the "it's only a few minutes extra travel time" as that totally undermines your stated premise that these closures are to reduce pollution - what you are saying is utterly counter-intuitive. The point One Dulwich are trying to make is that these closures are not properly thought through and the reason they are garnering so much support is that people across Dulwich are fed-up by the way the council forces these changes through without any consideration for the majority of people who live in the area. The fact so many post on here to deposition One Dulwich shows just how effective they are being - the playing field is being levelled and a few people don't like it.....some of us want a balanced approach to traffic management, others want traffic management to be built around the premise that cars are evil and must be stopped.....

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Townley is one of the least residential roads in > the area and if you close it off you funnel yet > more traffic along Lordship Lane and East Dulwich > Grove adding to the already huge increases in > traffic along those roads.e > > The problems with Townley were largely at the > Calton / EDG "triple junction" but with the > closure of Calton at DV, that's now much less of > an issue. However the Court Lane closure has lead > to people cutting through from CL up Dekker / > Desenfans / Druce / Dovercourt / Eynella, onto > Woodwarde and then down Dovercourt or Beauval onto > Townley. > > One option, rather than closing Townley (and even > the Healthy Streets plan only wanted to have timed > restrictions along there, not close it altogether) > would be to have "up" and "down" roads (so up > Beauval / down Dovercourt and the same again with > the streets the other side of Woodwarde. That > would also help the current situation where double > parking along all of those streets leads to queues > as head-on traffic tries to reverse. Exdulwicher - you're a planner - shouldn't the council's experts have been able to predict these issues - or is it all part of their cunning plan....

I think it is for the illusion that the council are listening. It also looked like a retrospective vehicle to help then justify the Melbourne Grove and DV closures. Cllr McAsh asked us to submit suggestions there during the early part of lockdown and many did for Lordship Lane yet only the Moxon's pavement widening appeared months into lockdown. Then Cllr McAsh posted on the Covid thread here that the council had looked at Lordship Lane and could not find any issues to justify any pavement widening elsewhere and he asked for input on more specific places. So the system is a little confusing. Perhaps Cllr McAsh could come on here and address whether anything can be done at that junction (it has got even worse since the DV closures) and what other plans the council may be considering/executing.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Remember, the council has aspirations to close > > Townley Road too in the not too distant > future.... > > > That would make sense tbh. On what grounds? Townley is one of the least residential roads in the area and if you close it off you funnel yet more traffic along Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove adding to the already huge increases in traffic along those roads. This is where we have to put realism over idealism for these changes - something the council seems incapable of. It is obvious what impact all these changes would have on surrounding roads yet the anti-car lobby and their council friends are too blinkered to acknowledge it.

Remember, the council has aspirations to close Townley Road too in the not too distant future....

Cllr McAsh, are you at all concerned by the significant increases in traffic congestion in and around your ward since the introduction of the closures in Dulwich Village and Melbourne Grove? You seem to be avoiding direct questions on the matter and seem to have lost your ability to access the Healthy Streets thread since the measures were implemented...shall we speak to Admin on your behalf? ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ask cars to stop driving through a few residential > streets and people lose their sh*t. But are they? Aren't they just saying that these particular closures are causing huge issues elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were designed to...infact they are making things worse. Anyway, One Dulwich now have the attention of Helen Hayes and are in dialogue with her and she has indicated she has some concerns. This is exactly the path that was followed at Loughborough junction and when the proper politicians get involved you know things are moving in the right direction..... ultimately the local council's folly may have a longer term impact as their mismanagement of these programmes will impact their political ability to push proper plans through - people won't trust them on anything.

The cycling revolution started in the Netherlands in the 1970s after huge numbers of children were killed on the roads. Since then it has been part of a mix- transport usage plan across the country where equal weight is given to all transport types. This is what we all want. It was built into many town plans from the outset because much of the development was Greenfield or reclaimed! Did you happen to cycle through a mega city during your 200km cycle? And yes, I have done a fair bit of cycling myself there - my aunt and uncle used to live in Venlo!

Please please please stop using the Netherlands as a great example. It is a great example of how cycling can be integrated with other forms of road use but it is also very, very different to the UK. Fundamentally different. For a start Amsterdam, the biggest city has only 800,000 people living in it and is very very small.It is not a mega city, like London. The Netherlands is very very flat. So flat that they were able to develop significant canal networks that came with tow paths - you may have noticed Amsterdam is famous for it's canals! Tow paths lend themselves very nicely to cycle lanes. Much of the Netherlands was reclaimed in the 1920s so is relatively new and don't rely on Victorian infrastructure. Due to the flat nature of the country and tow paths cycling has always been a big part of the culture there. So please, show me a mega city that developed significantly during Victorian times and built along railways lines and tube lines and then I might pay attention. But please, don't cite The Netherlands as a comparable model to what could happen here. It won't.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Transport for London's own analysis suggests that > 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable > (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is > under 64; traveler has no relevant disability). > > If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you > *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle. As I was saying wallowing in the cesspit of stats rolled out by the powers that be to justify their own narrative....back in the real world people have families and things to carry so 41% of journeys of up to 5 miles are not easily done on a bike...10% maybe but not 41%

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the > > village > > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 > > minute > > > diversion at most. > > > > > > 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all > stacks > > up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle > on > > this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council > > have their way you won't be able to use Townley > > either so how much more time would that add > onto > > future journeys? > > Going to sussex. If I had to go down lordship lane > and then East Dulwich Grove, or South up Lordship > Lane, it would still add little more than 5-6 > minutes realistically, when compared to going via > Calton road. It?s really not that big a deal imo. But it is big deal isn't it? Because in the cesspit of statistics and percentages (which the council loves nothing more than to wallow in when it is lobbying people to support it's hair-brained closures) then that is a doubling (at least) of driving time for the start of your journey and, more importantly, a doubling of pollution (and that is presuming you don't hit traffic congestion). Times that by the number of other people who have to make a similar detour it soon adds up and aptly demonstrates how short-sighted these closures are because for every person who walks or cycles many more will be forced to make a detour - because as you more than aptly demonstrate by your trip to Sussex sometimes the car is the only viable option.

siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What I don't understand is why the council are > > using that platform for these surveys instead > of > > their in house respurces. The company behind it > is > > backed by private equity funds. That's not very > > labour like > > I wondered this, which is why I shared. This > popped up on Facebook, but not exactly aimed at > me, more a placed ad. Popped up on Facebook - wow, that's interesting. Do you mind me asking where you are based? It could well be that the council, or their agents, are geo-targeting certain areas. Has anyone else had this?

Looks like the council is preparing for the next round of road closures. This, according to Cllr McAsh's latest newsletter....https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/goose-green-newsletter-summer-2020. Take a look but it looks like the council are now desperately chasing the displacement issues they have caused by the Melbourne Grove closure. All together now...."we told you so".....;-) At the time of writing, the permeable filter on Melbourne Grove south has already been installed (this had been considered initially as part of the Our Healthy Streets scheme so these plans had already been developed). 2. We will request that further permeable filters are installed on Melbourne Grove north, Elsie Road, Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent. 3. We will request that adequate monitoring is in place for these streets and those nearby, including East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove, and Zenoria/Oxonian Street. 4. We believe that Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street should be considered for the next round of measures. 5. We have formally requested that the junction of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove be considered for further measures, including potential traffic lights, when funding is available.

James, Can you clarify what you mean by no issues? There are always long queues of people outside M&S, the Post Office and William Rose and the pavements are narrow at those points. There are also choke points outside SMBS Foods, GBK and Franca Manca - perhaps you should wander down and take a look for yourself.

In case anyone missed it Cllr McAsh posted on the Covid forum yesterday the following note about the council finally looking at more social distancing measures on Lordship Lane. If anyone is seeing any issues that the council isn't able to see it might be worth letting Cllr McAsh know because he seems to be suggesting there are no issues other than outside Moxons (which was addressed). I have asked the council to do an investigation of the pavements on Lordship Lane to ascertain which sections need further measures. Using previous suggestions we looked at the following areas four times last Saturday - Post Office area - M & S - Stretch of shop @ Moxon?s - William Rose Butchers With the social distancing measures in place around Moxon's, all four areas showed no issues. Do others have different experiences? Or are there other places we should look at insteaD? Best wishes James

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the village > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 minute > diversion at most. 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all stacks up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle on this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council have their way you won't be able to use Townley either so how much more time would that add onto future journeys?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 25 years ago London population 6.8 million and is > now 8.8million. > Forecast is London population will increase from > 8.8 to 10.8million residents over the next 25 > years. > If the same ratio drive then driving gets much > much harder. Roads much more congested. Even the > same ratio of people walking, cycling see's many > more people travelling by these methods wanting > and demanding better conditions to walk and cycle. > Public transport becomes ever less pleasant with > over crowding. > > Doing nothing makes everyone cross and would be no > way to try managing this huge population > increase. > Trying to make changes to reduce the proportion of > car driving for journeys will also cause huge > angst, and worry for those who are essential car > drivers. It has also been proved time and time again that closing roads as the council has done does indeed reduce car use on that road but creates an increase in both congestion and pollution on other roads and an overall net increase overall. Just look at the last round of improvement works at DV, it increased pollution. Just moving/displacing the problem isn't solving the problem - it's lazy and short-sighted.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I made a point of checking Effra's concerns > about > > East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for > myself. > > > > 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - > virtually > > no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm > > going north from the village had circa 15 cars > > just before going green which all passed > through > > on green. > > 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights > go > > green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 > bus > > queuing going East. All passed through on > green. > > Private schools are on summer holidays which > will > > reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East > > Dulwich Grove is not. > > > Hardly an official traffic census on all roads in > and around the changes James > > It's a bit like the pro cpz brigade saying on > Tuesday last week my road was so full of cars you > couldn't get a piece of paper between them we > demand a CPZ > But on the Anti CPZ brigade say on Thursday there > were loads of spaces I don't see your problem > > Without a recognised before, and after survey over > a sustained period (not just a snap shot as used ) > then there is no evidence that it is or isn't > working > Casual observation and hearsay isn't evidence ! > > The real issue here is lack of proper supporting > evidence or consultation by the council and > without it people are rightly going to complain. > If you want to do something to help then try > campaigning to get the council to actually engage > and listen to the full population and not just the > vocal locals who shout the loudest. James, perhaps you can help us ask Cllr McAsh why there was, and is, no monitoring on the roads being most impacted by this? He seems to have been less willing to engage via this forum since the beginning of the people-led revolution! ;-)

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes close lordship lane and further damage the > businesses who have already had a tough time. You might to be onto something here - close Lordship Lane, make it pedestrian only and then make Melbourne Grove the by-pass for it. Remove all parking along Melbourne Grove and then that will keep the activist residents happy as it will remove the commuter parking they were citing as the reason for the CPZ. ;-) P.S. for all of those without a sense of humour this is a joke

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does anyone know if there are any plans to > reduce > > traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne > > Grove being closed to through traffic). > Anything > > to improve Lordship Lane? > > This should hopefully be on the cards. These > initiatives don't work in isolation, and > unfortunately making the area better for active > transport holistically is a chain of deeply-unsexy > measures like kerb dropping, better pedestrian & > cycle lane provision and overall traffic > reduction. > > Unfortunately you have a huge status quo bias from > drivers, who want everything to be exactly the > same, with nothing to inconvenience them. Ideally > following a lovely long, circular consultation. > > CPZ? No. Close a couple of streets to stop rat > running? Absolutely not. Cue local NIMBYs in SUVs > shouting themselves hoarse and getting leaflets > printed, for essentially what is their right to > drive 2km to the shops, for the modal part. > > There's over 36,000 deaths from air pollution a > year in London, I'm not sure endlessly consulting > on these things is working. Hopefully we'll see > more action from the council soon to keep up > momentum. I am not sure you will find anyone on this forum calling for what you claim from the driver's perspective - in fact, the only bias demonstrated throughout this and other posts on the subject is invariably from the anti-car brigade - more often than not myopic and prejudicial (yourself included as I am not sure there are 1,000 SUVs in Dulwich!). What people want is something more balanced - something that considers all road users whilst managing the pollution crisis not a sledgehammer approach that actually causes more congestion and pollution (as is happening now on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and the A205 and happened after the first DV works). Surely you can see that the DV and Melbourne Grove closures are creating far worse problems across the area? Those 1,000+ people who have signed up for One Dulwich are not petrol-heads or NIMBYs in SUVs they are real people with real lives who are being impacted by, and can see through, the council's ham-fisted attempt to manage the crisis. What you are seeing is democracy in action - all I, and I am sure many others on here, ever wanted was for a fair and balanced approach that is inclusive of all the needs of the community. If the One Dulwich community action project helps delivers balance then I, and a lot of others, will be happy. For too long only one voice in the debate has been heard and that needs to change.

It looks like the maildrop is working - over 1,000 sign-ups now - it seems like One Dulwich have really hit upon something - many of us have been telling the council for a long time that they need to listen to more people and make their consultation outputs more reflective of community feeling as a whole rather than appeasing a small minority of the Dulwich constituents and inflicting misery on others as a result.

I suspect the residents who feel they have been ignored by the council are pulling out all the stops to get as much support as possible for their group (which is not pro-car they just want a more balanced approach to council decision making that impact all residents in Dulwich). One Dulwich have been very public in their request for people with relevant skills to offer their services to them so I suspect they have been deploying those skills when people volunteer their services. One Dulwich are now heading up towards 1,000 registered - the momentum is gathering pace, just look at the map of Dulwich where people have registered - it's pretty compelling. https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters By the looks of the amount of active One Dulwich de-positioning going on those who have had the exclusive ear of the council for so long are getting worried that the playing field is getting levelled.......