Rockets

As we know from Loughborough Junction, complaints from emergency services are often the undoing of ill-thought out and badly implemented council plans! Time will tell on this one too. And remember, it?s not about access per se but the congestion pressure these measures create elsewhere leading to delays in response times and putting lives at risk.

James, I note with interest that Rye Lane in Peckham has had significant efforts to aid social distancing for shoppers in place since May 1st - your boss proudly tweeted pictures of the new traffic light contraflow system to allow social distancing on May 1st. Any reason why you haven?t been able to implement any aids to social distancing on Lordship Lane - or could you not get wide community support for anything? Also, do you have updates on all the great ideas people suggested in response for your request for ideas? An update on progress might be timely.

I see the activists are hailing this all as a victory whilst pressuring the council for more! Ha ha, they'll never be happy! I particularly love the way CleanAirDulwich is trying to spin a complaint from This is Dulwich Village that the pollution levels have gone through the roof since the blockade was put in tries to spin it for more closures! https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1277895431901589507?s=09 And there's more from MumsforLungs, Dulwich Safe Routes and so the list goes on and on - who are these people and why do they wield such power with the council?!

If you take a quick look at Google Maps you can see that the council appears to have created a ring of red stationery traffic around Dulwich - A205, Lordship Lane, ED Grove, Half Moon Lane and Croxted Road. It's early days of course but traffic does seem to be a lot heavier everywhere on the basis of these closures. Even Melbourne Grove is showing red - is it as chaotic as it seems?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You need to start somewhere though. > > And unfortunately, there is an air quality crisis > in London, and there are too many car journeys. > > Long consultations and hand-wringing aren't the > way forward - better infrastructure comes from > many, many small things over time with additive > effect rather than massive initiatives that happen > all at once. > > So, you close some junctions, install some lanes, > drop some kerbs, and you keep doing it. It's > deeply unsexy in terms of what you actually have > to do. And people will moan about it, as they do > all over the world. And yes, people will be > unhappy as it's the status quo being changed, and > people are averse to the status quo changing. > > What you have in this area particularly is > highly-mobilised, university educated people who > are very wedded to their cars, so not > surprisingly, they are moaning about it loudly. Is being highly-mobilised and university educated something to be ashamed of? Should we overlook the concerns of that group to favour others? I think the approach taken by the council looks to many like something being driven by political ideology to attack the people in "leafy Dulwich" and when you look at the hap-hazard nature of their plans, the lack of any support for Lordship Lane you can see why this narrative gets significant resonance.

dulwichquine Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wondering why the council has closed the DV > junction just as the schools are closing?! If > deemed necessary to protect school children, why > not do it for when schools re-open? It's because they can fudge the figures - I guarantee you they will compare pre-Covid traffic levels to the next 3 months when they know there are no schools and some people are still working from home and claim the measures are a rip-roaring success. Cut to the late-Autumn when schools are back, the weather is dire and people are back at work and worried about public transport and it will be chaos. As we have seen before you can't believe anything the council uses to justify their current cause-celebre and I suspect we can see what they are planning already for this project...

To Slarti b's point - the issue a lot of people have is that the council is taking a shotgun approach to this - there is no area-wide thinking - they just want to throw roadblocks in at points that they think are rat-runs and are presuming that car-use plummets on the back of it - they know, and we know, that isn't the case - you might lose 10% of car-use as locals consider different ways to travel to local destinations but there will still be through-traffic - it just goes another route. At the same time the council do nothing to support Lordship lane in terms of assisting with social distancing. This is why so many people are registering their support for One Dulwich - they are fed-up with the council not listening to the people who actually live across the area as a whole. The council will only ever listen to a vocal minority in hand-picked areas and activists with a vested-interest - and they are tone-deaf to anyone with a differing opinion to their own - and actually quite disparaging to them - look at the way they handled the public meetings on the CPZ. The council are reaping what they sow - when you extend double-yellow lines to create parking pressure, when 68% of people in an area vote against a CPZ and you change the parameters so you can go ahead with it, when you lie to justify additional closures and you ignore the electorate the electorate have to take matters into their own hands.

And we need to bear in mind that traffic is still a lot lower as the majority of people are still not back at work. We also need to factor in that there has been no warning of this bar a couple of temporary road-signs put up along Calton Avenue - we walked passed them on Sunday and I was surprised there were none along Court Lane. To rahrahrah's point - yes sat navs may be alerted to the closure but that also means they will now be routing cars via backstreets to completed their journeys - it's what happened at Loughborough Junction - Waze, GoogleMaps etc just took people around the houses.

The plastic barriers Lambeth have put up around Loughborough Junction don't look like they cost much at all and seem to have been repurposed from somewhere else. Why isn't Southwark able to do the same around East Dulwich - it seems our council has been so focused on fast-tracking their road closures through that they have neglected any actual Covid assistance measures for the majority of residents. It is ludicrous they have done nothing to assist social distancing on Lordship Lane.

That escalated quickly.....;-) Admin - do your thing....

James, Well I thank you for your, one must say rather good, attempt at a back-handed compliment but as someone who has made a living from my vivid imagination and creativity it is something I am more than proud of and glad it wasn't taught out of me during my time at school. It naturally leads me to muse at how much better you, and your other council colleagues, would be at serving the community if you took a leaf out of my, and you pupils' book, and took a more imaginative approach to solving the complex issues presented to it...but I am sure you were expecting me to say that! In all seriousness, the pressure is mounting on you, your colleagues and the council to be accountable to more than just a minority of the constituents you represent and, as you can see from OneDulwich, people are mobilising because they feel the council and councillors are not listening to them. Let's hope you have the imagination, wherewithal and political flexibility to take a different approach during your next two years of office.

I am glad the pictures have been taken down (although I do subscribe to the old saying of no smoke without fire) but you have to admire the sudden mobilisation of "concerned parents" who registered on this forum today to voice their disapproval that their kids might have been "identified" - I particularly liked how some of their posts using a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis....one hopes that they are taking time to speak to their children and advising them not to cause a nuisance to residents. The Hill has become a problem area - every morning it looks like a war zone and all people want is for whomever uses it to treat it, and the local residents, with respect.

EDguy89 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Have they expanded the closures on Melbourne > Grove > > as they now refer to it as "a closure to all > motor > > traffic on Melbourne Grove, south of Tell Grove" > - > > which suggests no vehicles will be able to gain > > access to the whole section of Melbourne Grove > or > > is it just badly worded? > > > > Also, the fact they have left the Healthy > Streets > > map in place does this mean that they will also > be > > pressing ahead with the closure of Eynella and > the > > expansion of the CPZ to areas B and C under > this > > plan too? > > > > The communication from the council has been > > appalling - deliberately confusing and unclear > - > > and I am interested to see that Comrade McAsh > is > > keeping a very-low profile nowadays and now > > seemingly applies a controversy-filter to > anything > > he responds to and avoids any questions he > doesn't > > see fit to answer. > > > > The sooner we get a chance to vote on whether > we > > want this rabble in control locally the better > - > > it seems the Labour party haven't learnt > anything > > from the election and the sooner Keir Starmer > gets > > to grips with rooting the far-left out of the > > party at all levels the sooner they will have > the > > chance to start earning the respect of the > > electorate once again. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-str > eets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich > > The hyperlink to the PDF file entitled "Melbourne > Grove" has a map that shows exactly where the > barrier will be placed. > > Looks like vehicles won't be able to get access to > Melbourne Grove from East Dulwich Grove. Ah ha, so it isn't a closure to traffic as the council's note suggests but a closure to traffic trying to use Melbourne Grove from East Dulwich Grove - the closure to all traffic was probably wishful thinking on behalf of the council!

Rahrahrah - it looks as if the school didn't want one - or certainly not where the council wanted to put it. Quite pointed that the council seemingly hadn't consulted the school prior to these plans being drawn up which seems ludicrous to me - and demonstrates the haphazard and knee-jerk approach to these things by our elected representatives. What do they say about the 6 Ps of planning/performance......;-)

Therein lies the issue with the public transport headbangers - I am not sure many of them have actually used it - or certainly not tried to use it in anything other than a north/south capacity. London developed on traditional linear conurbation lines as the rail and tube networks were built out - it wasn't built for mass transit for anything other than a north to south/in and out of London manner and not much has improved in the last 100 years - look at the trouble they are having with CrossRail.

Any second now we will get an update from Cllr McAsh (an update written by the Politburo! ;-)) on how they have listened to all of the concerns regarding the closure of roads around East Dulwich to through traffic but have ignored them all to pursue this folly. In two years, during the local councillor elections, we can remind Cllr McAsh of his unwavering support for the party line and how he systematically overlooked his constituents and caused untold misery for the majority of East Dulwich residents. We can also remind him that he, and his party, did nothing to manage traffic challenges as a whole instead focused their attention on the evil folks of "leafy Dulwich" (his words not mine). We can remind him that when called upon he did nothing to support those outside of his own echo chamber. He will no doubt retort with heroic tales of how he was busy single-handedly defeating the government's plans to re-open schools in June, will send us a few videos of police brutality, tell us that private schools are evil, hand us all socialist worker placards and proudly show us his Order of Karl Marx that Richard Livingstone gave him for his services to Goose Green during his time in office!

Have they expanded the closures on Melbourne Grove as they now refer to it as "a closure to all motor traffic on Melbourne Grove, south of Tell Grove" - which suggests no vehicles will be able to gain access to the whole section of Melbourne Grove or is it just badly worded? Also, the fact they have left the Healthy Streets map in place does this mean that they will also be pressing ahead with the closure of Eynella and the expansion of the CPZ to areas B and C under this plan too? The communication from the council has been appalling - deliberately confusing and unclear - and I am interested to see that Comrade McAsh is keeping a very-low profile nowadays and now seemingly applies a controversy-filter to anything he responds to and avoids any questions he doesn't see fit to answer. The sooner we get a chance to vote on whether we want this rabble in control locally the better - it seems the Labour party haven't learnt anything from the election and the sooner Keir Starmer gets to grips with rooting the far-left out of the party at all levels the sooner they will have the chance to start earning the respect of the electorate once again.

So the measures being put in place to help the school didn't actually work for the school and the school rejected them....anyone else think the council isn't giving this the level of thought and planning required for such measures?Also, given the junction of Goodrich and Dunstans is a roundabout which part of it are they going to block? Also, are the measures at 12 other schools on the list of emergency plans the council has listed on their site or will these just pop up without any consultation with local residents? Look at the disaster the Goodrich scheme would have been for the residents on the street - thank goodness they were able to intervene.

Was there any update on this - are the council still going ahead with one permanent and one moveable barrier on Goodrich road and can we expect to see these go in in a matter of days? To Jacqui5254's point - these plans seem a bit odd. BTW are there similar traffic calming measures outside Heber? I do hope all those impacted are putting their weight behind One Dulwich.

KatyKoo re: alarmist misinformation - "a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction".......and do bear in mind that was the major tenet of the council's reasoning for the measures and used to garner support from the local community and formed the backbone of their narrative...which has now been exposed as a complete fabrication. Hardly makes you trust their motives does it? Taken in isolation you could say it was a "mistake" but the council seems to make a lot of "mistakes" when it comes manipulating things to get what they want. It's ironic isn't it that the moment a group comes along who seem to be representing a balanced view other than the party line council wants people to swallow suddenly people start attacking them and questioning their motives (even some who have felt compelled to register here solely to post their views in the last day or so). All the power to One Dulwich - it's high time the council listened to the many rather than the few!!! ;-) Every day more people are registering support for One Dulwich so they appear to be getting something right. And remember, no-one on here is saying that these issues are not important and don't need addressing they just don't like the way the council is going about it. Many want an area-wide approach asthe path the council is taking is going to be a disaster for the area as a whole and, as we saw from Lambeth, these councils and councillors will never admit they made a mistake and take action to rectify anything - just look at the mess Dulwich Village is now after the first round of improvements - the council thinks it was a great success! Anyone who uses that junction knows the opposite is true.

Sim1 - as someone who used to cycle from East Dulwich to Hammersmith for work I feel your pain - some points on any cycle journey can be treacherous. What your point about DV also highlights is whether we can actually trust the council to get this right. The council has already spent a lot of money "improving" the DV junction and (speaking as someone who cycles, walks and drives through there often) they have made it more congested, more polluted and more dangerous for all road users and pedestrians - it has been an absolute disaster and is an accident waiting to happen and they were told this at the time but forged ahead regardless and have done nothing at all to address it since. They view everything in isolation and don't take a broader area-wide approach which is why One Dulwich is getting so much traction - Healthy Streets requires an area wide, co-ordinated approach - this council is not delivering that. It is obvious their plan amounts to no more than creating road blockades in the north (Melbourne Grove), west (DV) and east (Goodrich) to try and stop through traffic - it is a sledge-hammer approach to traffic management that will create huge problems. Despite many on here trying to convince people that car journeys will be replaced by cycling or walking - that isn't the reality - through traffic goes elsewhere. Let's remind ourselves of what happened when DV was effectively blockaded by the last round of improvement works when roadworks made it impassable: 2014 = 15,414 movements 2015 = 15,055 2016 = 14,822 2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV 2018 = 14,375 estimate because they changed the reporting basis 2019 not yet published After the roadworks were removed the traffic returned (and gave the council the 40% increase in traffic figure they have been erroneously touting as the catalyst for the current DV consultation). In just over a week there is going to be a lot of traffic going different routes to find their way through Dulwich due to the blockades dropping across the area and I suspect, much like the errors of the last improvements at DV, it is the residents of Dulwich who will have to bear the brunt of the issues created by it as the council will never admit mistakes and fix problems of their creation.

Many people in the area are fed-up with the council and our local councillors refusing to listen to the majority of residents. Time and time again it has happened (CPZ, Healthy Streets etc) and I think people see One Dulwich as a way of making resident's voices heard when many feel they are ignored. Support for One Dulwich is spreading across the whole area and is gaining momentum - soon the council and councillors will have to take note that people in the area want a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to traffic planning and that they cannot continue to railroad their plans through without any accountability. Remember, there is no opposition in Southwark at the council level - the opposition is having to come from the constituents. KatyKoo - I am not sure your quote of car ownership being 20% higher in Dulwich than in other parts of Southwark and references to the "entitled of Dulwich" really does your argument any good. There is a feeling amongst many residents in Dulwich that the council overlooks the area as it is...as Cllr McAsh has referred to it as before... "leafy Dulwich"...and many of these programmes are motivated by political ideology. It's also about the bigger picture. You live in Area B and are obviously quite happy with the changes being mooted - I have no doubt your road will probably reap the benefits but that traffic will be displaced elsewhere - what happens to the people living there? The point everyone is trying to make is that just throwing a load of bollards into roads around East Duwlich won't fix the challenges with traffic in the area - it just moves it somewhere else. If you want a great example of what happens look up what happened at Loughborough Junction when Lambeth followed a similar path - congestion became so bad elsewhere lives were put a risk.

Not sure how the council officer can claim there was no impact on traffic flow through Dulwich Village during the roadworks to build the last phase - here are the council's own figures (you can clearly see where the 40% "increase" comes from): 2014 = 15,414 movements 2015 = 15,055 2016 = 14,822 2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV 2018 = 14,375 estimate because they changed the reporting basis 2019 not yet published And remember, since the last round of works were completed the council's own report also says that there has been a "moderate" increase in NO2 levels around the junction - so their last round of Healthy Streets tinkering has actually caused an increase in pollution.

JimLad - your comments are ill-judged - a large percentage of those who died would have lived longer had it not been for Covid - many were old and ill but that doesn't mean we should not have tried to protect them. Sue - I am not sure it is entirely fair comparing the UK to New Zealand in terms of how well a country dealt with Corona-virus - not exactly a level playing field. For starters, New Zealand has a total population of just 4.8 million (compared to 66 million) and has about 46 people per square mile (compared to around 1,000 people per square mile here). Additionally, New Zealand gets roughly the same number of visitors in a year (3.5m) as the UK does in one month - given this virus was imported it was a lot easier for a country that is a long way from anywhere and not a major international hub to control the outbreak.

The government has just said, during the daily briefing, that councils have been instructed that public facilities (including toilets) should be open. James, any update?