Rockets

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).

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.