Rockets

Yes it seems as if all councillors have a LTN filter on their inboxes that sends any email from anyone daring to question what they are doing to their trash! Are they all still unable to do surgeries at the moment? If so, what I can't work out is that in this modern world everyone else is managing perfectly well to communicate via video calls etc yet our councillors seem to have given up on any direct contact with their constituents - using Covid as the excuse for zero communication. Or perhaps they don't want to talk to people right now! ;-)

I believe that Nunhead right turn now won't be possible with this closure as it is closing the Nunhead fork to anything but buses and bikes so not sure where cars trying to turn right onto East Dulwich Road will be supposed to go when these measures get the inevitable greenlight. Surely this will displace traffic along Barry Road that will be forced to cut down Upland? Another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Or am I missing something? It seems the Peckham Rye closure is designed solely to stop any right turns from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road. And how do residents of Whorlton Road and, in particular, Nunhead Crescent get access? What is it that the council has about any east/west travel across Dulwich? It's as if someone got a big red marker and told the roads team - draw a red line on any route east west and work out how we can close it.

Wow....a couple of things really standout from this Batch 4 proposal. 1) The council seems to be doing their utmost to keep adding more closures that affect more people thus creating more overall resistance to what they are doing. The turkeys are voting for Christmas with each batch of proposals. 2) Very, very telling that in the Peckham Rye documentation it says this: Emergency services (Fire, Police and Ambulance) have indicated they will not support schemes which promote hard road closures, as they will increase response times. Their preference is for camera enforced closures without physical prevention for vehicles. This is huge as it shows the emergency services are saying "enough - you're causing problems with these closures". It is exposing one of the major Achilles heals of all these programmes and shows they ARE having a negative impact on response times. What does this mean for those hard road closures already in place one wonders? Additionally can someone remind me, am I right in thinking there is no right turn from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road? If so, how do vehicles get from Peckham to East Dulwich when these closures go in? 3) The closure of Burbage is again chasing the displacement that will be caused by them closing the northbound route through Dulwich Village and the closure of another east/west route across Dulwich. It's clear they have created a monster that they are unable to control it and their only solution is to close more and more roads and with those closures come more misery for others in the area.

It's getting on for a month since Cllr McAsh last made an appearance here and a lot of questions are still unanswered. He is fast becoming this forum's Ferris Bueller....;-)

I am not entirely convinced the council has the first clue what they are doing anymore. They seemingly don't have a plan - they carpet bombed the closures, are chasing the displacement and are now trying to work out what to do next. Benches seems a bizarre idea and I can't believe they want to slow down cyclists - is there a problem with speeding cyclists there or maybe the council is turning it's attention away from the war on cars and now is going after cyclists!!! ;-) It is becoming increasingly clear that none of these closures were intended to be temporary.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The roads are obviously closed. They even have > signs at the end of them that say "Road Closed" I am glad someone pointed this out as a few on here were saying the roads are not closed and were moaning when people refer to them as thus - but each road has a very big red sign on it saying Road Closed - which is pretty definitive. The council tried to change the signs to green "Road Open to" and removed the Road Closed signs but I suspect they fell foul of laws regarding road signage as the red Road Closed signs re-appeared again pretty quickly thereafter. Now many have one red Road Closed and one green Road Open to sign. So it is pretty clear that it is perfectly ok to refer to them as closed roads!!! ;-)

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At a macro level, the real outcome of this should > be not be being able to walk and cycle on your own > road more easily but more of us being motivated to > get from A to B over long distances on bike or > foot- that's where the individual behaviour change > will happen and collectively, we would see less > cars on the roads. I don't think the council has > done a good job on this front in terms of showing > how people can use the closed roads as a new > travel network and indeed enabling this e.g. > through installing Santander bikes. > > And yes, it is really rough on those impacted by > increased pollution on their roads. My kids are > on EDG and LL 5 days a week and that worries me > but I was already worried about pollution so the > do nothing option doesn't work for me either. If > we all expect that we can keep driving as much as > we always have, and with Covid, more so, pollution > is only going in one direction. And the > psychological evidence shows that the external > environment needs to change for most of us to make > meaningful changes to our habits, people aren't > going to wake up en masse one day and change > because they are worried about the environment (or > at least not until the tangible pain of pollution > is so great that they feel they have no choice and > we don't want to get to that point) > > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don?t drive > > > > ?The two views seem to be: > > > > 1. Those who really want to be able to drive > > without hindrance > > 2. Those who want to make it easier to walk and > > cycle and more difficult to use ones car. > > > > The main disagreement is whether attempts to > > achieve this with filtering traffic on certain > > roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in > > general, when it comes to health, the > environment, > > quality of life etc. Reasonable people may take > > different views on this, as clearly there are > > knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim 2. > , > > but not the approach to trying to attain it, > then > > it would be interesting to hear alternatives > > suggestions. > > > > I haven't really heard however, anyone > explaining > > how the first approach (sticking with the > status > > quo) can possibly make anything better.? > > > > I walk and cycle...my road is now awful to > cycle > > or walk on for 4 hours a day during the working > > week. I?m sure if my road had been closed I > would > > also be saying ?these closures are > wonderful?.... > > but instead I now have all your traffic on my > > road. Thanks. I don't think anyone is suggesting to not do anything what people are saying is don't do this thing as it won't work and it is making things worse. Closing lots of roads is clearly not the solution.

LTNs were the subject of a news item on the BBC 10 o'clock news last night. Very balanced with those for and against both featured but the BBC did use, as the catalyst for the story, that there are plans to make many of them permanent.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've only dipped into this every so often because > the thread goes round in circles. > > It seems to be polarised between two groups who > just aren't going to agree. > 1. those who want a return to pre-closure state, > who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as > it was before, including when it involves passing > and queueing at many many primary and secondary > schools > 2. those for whom the current changes are only the > start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one > ever drives > > Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile > these two groups, both of which seem to me to be > unrealistic? There definitely needs to be a middle-ground but it requires a more sophisticated approach than the one the council is taking. Everyone recognises that encouraging people out of the car is urgently needed but carpet bombing road closures has never been the solution - that has been obvious to anyone with a small amount of common-sense who could see what was going to happen. The council also needs to be open about their own analysis on displacement as they would have known what was going to happen when they modelled the closures. Additionally: 1. There needs to be proper analysis that starts by weighting all transportation modes equally and is not biased against one form or another (the council starts with an anti-car sentiment and skews everything to their advantage and if you want a true picture of what is happening you have to start neutral). 2. That analysis needs to drill down very specifically what the biggest problem is (we all know this is going to be car use but the council needs to identify exactly where these cars are going and what they are doing) 3. Is the problem commuters? Is the problem school traffic? Is the problem shoppers? Is the problem delivery vehicles or Ubers? Why do people choose cars over public transport. The council does not ever try to ascertain this so has no idea what they are trying to fix. The solution needs to know the problem. 5. The council then needs to implement measures that a) encourages other use beyond the car b) invoke solutions that don't create more problems than they solve c) properly monitor the congestion and pollution impact (good and bad) so there can be transparency during the review d) implement measures that are timed for when they are needed most. 4. Can the council work more closely with schools in the creation of school bus services for all schools? Perhaps the council could divert funds from doing bizarre end of year projects like re-paving streets around East Dulwich to working on a school bus service for each school. I know the US is very different but they have a very effective school bus service. 5. Bottom-line is the council and councillors need to listen to everyone not just the vocal few in their own echo-chamber

And finally a pic demonstrating how Court Lane is now being used by some as a drop-off point for the school. Calton Avenue was full of cars parking to drop children at the school. It was a very wet and damp and yes I saw some cyclists but nowhere near as many as I have seen on sunny days and I do wonder how much modal shift is dictated by weather and season and as we head into winter the thought of driving becomes more and more appealing.

The next picture (and sorry I have to post as individual pics because of file size limits) show the gridlock up to the EDG junction as traffic tries to turn right onto EDG.

What really annoys me is when I see things like this from Cllr Newens ( ) trying to convince people that the changes are working, or when I read how lovely someone says their cycle now is along one of the closed roads when in reality yards down the road people are being negatively impacted by the closures. I went for a run this morning and took a route back via Dulwich Village to see the modal shift in full effect on a wet morning and what I saw demonstrated anything other than a modal shift. What I saw was congestion northbound through Dulwich Village that never used to exist prior to the road closures. This is why the council is refusing to monitor pollution because they know what is happening on the roads being impacted by the displacement. The traffic was queuing from the roundabout. Of course, the solution the council is suggesting is to close access from the roundabout from 8 -10am and then 3pm to 6pm everyday but this is then goig to have a kncok-on effect on other local roads.

sanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mako Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Could you not have just walked to the park > anyway? > > Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a little > > bit nicer for your journey when you fancy going > to > > the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is > that > > occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the > > community to pay for the life threatening > levels > > of pollution that residents/pedestrians, > walkers > > cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours > daily? > > We could just walk. But it is a long walk, and > cycling on the pavement isn't something we want to > do as adults. So we'd just keep driving as that is > the easiest and safest option. The closures have > changed that. > > I don't see the life threatening levels of > pollution on Court Lane now, it is much easier and > safer to cross, and travel along. The same with > other roads in the area. Now that those are safer, > we can cycle and leave the car. Other roads like > Lordship Lane or the South Circular are still very > busy and cycling on there isn't an option with > children (except where there are sections of cycle > lane off the road). At least now we have a safe > option to cycle, which we didn't have before. And > that means we've not used our car for any local > journeys since before lockdown and saving a lot of > local journeys and pollution. Are you at all concerned about the increase in traffic and pollution on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove or the A205 being caused by the closure to roads such as Court Lane? Is it not the case that the pollution has now been funnelled down other roads rather than the ones you cycle down? And out of interest, were you able to cycle your children to and from nursery on Friday during the awful weather? Also you say your haven't used your car for local journeys - may I ask if your non-local car journeys have been distrupted by the road closures at all - increased congestion or additional time spent travelling to circumnavigate the closures?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Same here Sanda. And we take the kids to clubs > at > > Dulwich Sport's Centre at weekends and now > cycle, > > as do many others. There are definitely signs > that > > the LTNs are encouraging some (who can) to > ditch > > the car for certain journeys. > > "who can". Any person ditching a car for a bike or walking should be heralded and each one is to be welcomed but whilst we celebrate people cycling on a clear, dry sunny day let's be mindful that last Friday the weather was diabolical and there were noticeably fewer cyclists taking to the roads and a lot of congestion in the usual LTN induced hotspots. Weather set bad for the middle of this week so it will be interesting to observe patterns then too and whether the "who wants to" gets added to the "who can" group. My over-riding fear is still that the numbers are not, and will not be, significant enough to dilute the displacement issues being caused in other parts of the area by the closures - I walked down Lordship Lane today and the Lane and Goose Green roundabout was, once again, struggling to handle the volume of traffic coming down EDG and further up Lordship Lane there was nose-to-tail stationary traffic heading to the Grove Tavern right turn.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/comment/editorial-new-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-must-not-hinder-the-emergency-services/

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread is becoming a repeat of the Our > Healthy Streets one It isn't (are you trying to lobby to get Admin to lock this one too! ;-)) - DKHB wanted proof of one of the claims Slarti b had made. I am sure when DKHB acknowledges the fact that the claim is absolutely 100% correct then the thread can get back on track!!! ;-) It also goes to illustrate why many of us feel we can't trust the council when it comes to these matters and this impacts the Melbourne Grove closures as they are all interlinked.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > You've linked to a post in which you admit you > don't actually know what the figure refers to. > > As mentioned in my previous post, any uncertainty > comes from how Southwark is reporting the figures, > they have calculation errors and are unclear on > the bases of some of some of their data. There are > also small inconsistencies between the raw survey > data on their web site and the annual reports. > > Anyway, the figure of the 47% increase came from > the map in Soutwark's Annual monitoring Report > 2017/18. The narrative says "Traffic" in Dulwich > Village increased from 10,290 (Sep 2017) to 14,745 > (Sep 2018). This is actually an increase of 43.3% > but you would need to query Southwark as to the > discrepancy. It is also unclear whether the > figure of 14,745 includes cycles. > > Looking at Southwark's report for 2016\2017 this > shows a decrease of 33% based on the figures of > 10,290 (Sep 2017) vs 15,283 (Sep 2016). > > Southwark's report for 2015\16 doesn't actually > show any figures but from the Soutwark web site > Traffic map we can see a figure of 15,055 motor > Vehicles at DV in Sep 2015 > > So, to summarise the figures for DV > > Sep 2015 15,055 Motor vehicles only > Sep 2016 14,822 Motor vehicles only > Sep 2017 10,290 Motor vehicles only > Sep 2018 14,745 Motor Vehicles and maybe bikes > as well? > > As you can see, the "47% increase" (or maybe 43%) > was because of the big dip in traffic in Sep 2017 > when Southwark was rebuildng the junction; it does > not represent the massive increase in traffic > alleged by Councillors and it shows that C'llor > Simmons claim is false. > > The OneDulwich web site has a nice graphic showing > this as well, see > https://www.onedulwich.uk/traffic-movements > > The local C'llors were repeatedly challenged on > the 47% increase and repeatedly claimed they were > on a like for like basis, ie the base figures were > not when the jucntion was being worked on. > Either they were lying or they are naive, totally > incompetent and unable to read their own Council's > reports, even when they had the data pointed out > to them. > > Look at the thread with C'llor McAsh > /forum/read.php? > 5,1932267,page=21 > > Anyway, now I have again provided the numbers > (previously given in this and other threads) and > shown the response from Councillors I am looking > forward, not very hopefully, to an apology. And here is the Dulwich Village monitoring report May 2019 that Southwark published after the first phase of the DV junction had been completed where they reference the "moderate" increase in pollution. Interesting as well to note that the council installed a NO2 diffusion tube at the junction to monitor pollution yet now seems to think it isn't necessary to do so following the broader road closures. Hmmmmm.... Reading the report shows, clearly, that bar "an increase in cyclists using the quietway" the first round of works on the DV junction was a disaster. In fact, it is clear that the council actually made the junction worse from a congestion, pollution and safety aspect for all those trying to use it. Yet they did nothing about trying to rectify it. People on here question the expertise of those analysing and commenting on this issue but I am not convinced the council has demonstrated they have any sort of handle on how to deal with these problems and seem to be happy to follow one failed project with another. Closing the DV junction is probably their last ditch attempt to try to bury the mess they have created.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > You've linked to a post in which you admit you > don't actually know what the figure refers to. > > No you are wrong. The only uncertainty was the > council's presentation and a couple of minor > errors Southwark made. I was quoting the raw data; > when I get back form work I will dig out the data > in the published reports. > > Will you apologise if I can quote from Southwark > published reports showing that those figures are > correct? Slarti - those figures are correct - I remember reading them in the Southwark report - I believe it was the same one in which the council admitted that after their first "improvements" to the DV junction (designed to improve pollution) there was a "moderate" increase in pollution. I don't know about you but DKHB doesn't seem like the apologetic type so let's see what happens when you find the report....;-) I think Southwark have been keen to bury the smoking gun which is why it is so hard to find on their site now.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In about 18 months there will be a ballot that > the > > council won't be able to ignore. > > > > 2,200 votes is more than enough to displace all > > three of the goose green incumbents. > > > Only if all those who signed the petition lived in > the Goose Green Ward. Are the councillors prepared to roll that dice though....that will be key? We know from the OneDulwich supporter map that there are a lot of supporters throughout East Dulwich. There is a lot riding on the council elections politically and they are being positioned as a bell-weather for how much Keir Starmer has managed to drag the Labour party out of the mess Corbyn left them in so taking a pounding in council elections will not be a good look at all. There is also the mayoral election next year too - lose that and lose a lot of traditionally safe seats at council level and Keir finds himself in a bit of a pickle. I reckon the council abandons the next phase of planned closures, sees out the 6 month trails of those that are in place and then removes a lot of the closures to try and save face.

Is it a very small zone around East Dulwich station that is two hours because the restrictions that I saw on East Dulwich Grove are definitely all day? The Stradella Road, Half Moon Lane, Winterbrook etc. restrictions (the roads closest to the shops and station in Herne Hill) are 2 hours only - or at least they were the last time I was there a couple of weeks ago.

A quote from that article - does it sound familiar....find and replace Hackney with Dulwich....? Former Liberal Democrat London Assembly and 2019 general election candidate Ben Mathis spent last Sunday removing anti-LTN graffiti from roads in Clapton. ?While I personally think that feeling is being channelled against the wrong measures, I totally get it,? he says. ?People in Hackney are so used to being ignored ? scrutiny of the council from within is all but non-existent, consultations are routinely ignored."

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Unfortunately we are in a one-party state > here" > > > A statement of fact. Our ward Councillors are > Labour, the leader of the local group of wards is > Labour, the cabinet member responsible for > deciding teh schemes is Labour, the Council leader > is Labour and our Local MP is Labour. > > I have seen no scrutiny of or challenges to the > current "Covid" traffic measures from within this > Labour apparatus. Slarti b - your are absolutely right. There has not been a local single councillor who has done anything other than tow the party line or grandstand on this issue. Before Covid Cllr McAsh was going door to door lobbying residents of Melbourne Grove and surrounding streets for the need to close Melbourne Grove because of the closure to DV (he posted images of his flyers on his twitter feed for those naysayers who will say prove it!!! ;-)) - he knew there was going to be a problem and instead of questioning it on behalf of his constituents (as many of us were urging) he gleefully went along with it. And don't get me started on Cllr Newens.....she was tweeting just yesterday that "there is absolutely no doubt #dulwichmodalshift is real" but she does admit, ahem," that more needs to be done to reduce congestion". It's all a bit Comical Ali....

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They do, and one of our councillors went back to > the officer to find out more: > > "Posted by jamesmcash May 04, 07:18PM > > Hi all > > I have checked and apparently the baseline > measurements were carried out from 28th September > to 16th October 2015, when there were no road > works. > ... > > " > Posted by jamesmcash May 16, 04:04PM > > Hi all > > Regarding the DV figures - as I have said already, > my understanding is that the figures are not from > a period when there were road works. If you think > that that is untrue then I suggest you lodge a > complaint with the council. > > ..." The telling thing in Cllr McAsh's second reply is his use of "my understanding" a classic political back-step when you have dug a little deeper and realised there's something fishy going on and you really don't want to be associated with it in case it blows up.....I remember that thread as he went from definitive, to let me ask, to apparently, taking a detour via my understanding and then finally parking on raise a complaint.....read into that what you will. The data that Slarti b highlights was published in one of the council's own reports and it was only when someone went digging to find it were they able to expose the lie that was being used as the basis for the original consultation. What the numbers actually showed was that traffic numbers had been steadily declining over the preceding years (not dramatically as probably needed but downwards anyway) and the 47% increase was an anomaly created after the removal of the DV junction roadworks which had caused a 50% drop in vehicles through the junction (if I remember rightly the post roadworks figures were actually lower than the pre-roadworks figures). Thank goodness people are doing some due diligence to try to ensure the council are presenting accurate facts and stats and not lies that fit the narrative they want to peddle. It does make me laugh how so many on here who are pro-closures heckle and deposition everything that is presented to them in a style that is indicative of those who lack a proper counter argument. So much of this has been about balancing the discussion and giving a voice to those who have been ignored and have been suspicious of the council's motives, methods and execution. I love the fact that One Dulwich, the petitions and the discussions on here are rattling the cages of those who had carte blanche for so long. At last the playing field is starting to be levelled and more and more people are becoming aware of, and having an opinion on, what is happening in their local area - democracy in action if you ever saw it!

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > But it's not impressive is it - and remember > that > > was the very best case scenario taken from > reports > > extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from > the > > DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat) > 6200 > > cars will have to find another route. That's a > > minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads > they > > previously didn't drive down - which goes some > way > > to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so > much > > more congested now. > > > > You see the problem now? The displacement roads > > can't cope with the displacement so it won't > get > > better. When the council shuts Townley for > periods > > of the day then another east/west route across > the > > area gets closed and the problem is > exacerbated. > > > > The people on the displacement roads can "sit > > tight" forever as it won't ever get any better > on > > their roads. > > It's not a zero-sum game. The idea is that car > journeys disappear, not that they get displaced to > somewhere else. This mode will be replaced by > walking, cycling and public transport, or just by > not doing the journey in the first place. But they don't do they - even the pro-closure lobby talks about traffic evaporation - suggesting it condenses elsewhere. Traffic doesn't just disappear because you close some roads (a small percentage of it might do - that's the 11% as kids cycle to school or clubs, or people walk to the shops who used to drive) but there are still journeys that are being done in cars because not every journey can be done on foot, bike or public transport. The pro-closures lobby seems to have come to a bizarre conclusion that the all the people in cars in Dulwich are just locals driving within a one mile radius on a journey that can be walked or cycled. If that was the case then yes we could solve all the problems but I suspect the reality is very different from that.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The displacement roads can't cope with the > displacement so it won't get better.? > > That's assuming the same number of people continue > to use their cars when the whole aim is that > people get out of their cars for short journeys > and walk/cycle more. I?m a non driver myself but I > know a few people who are walking now instead of > driving and it would be interesting to learn of > others who are making the same lifestyle changes. Yes everyone, myself included, is doing more but you would expect those people who move to walking or cycling to be factored into the 11% figure. The council is targeting a 50% reduction which is probably a more realistic figure to ensure no negative displacement but I am not sure there are any LTNs or closures anywhere in the world that have delivered anywhere close to that number - so it makes you wonder what else they would have to do to reach it as these closures won't do it. Remember, even when public transport was running effectively Dulwich suffers from a lack of good public transport options (especially going East/West) which is why, I suspect, so many people have and use cars.