Rockets

This is utter madness - they must pause it surely...

A couple of days ago a police helicopter was flying in formation with an air ambulance over the Dulwich Park area, heading towards Kings - I suspect they are all running through scenario training. A lot of Chinooks around at the moment too dropping equipment at Excel.

I heard a really wonderful idea this morning that I think the council should be helping with. A care home reached out to its local community asking for old ipads so their residents could keep in contact with loved ones as they were in lockdown. The response from the local community was fantastic and the residents can now get comfort from still being able to communicate with their loved ones. Is there anything the council could do to help facilitate this? Cllr McAsh - as someone who has been involved in a fair bit of crisis comms in my time it might be a good idea to be a little more present on here - your constituents have responded to your request for ideas and yet we hear little, if anything, from you. Ex-councillors are being far more proactive in communicating and assisting your constituents over Corona-virus than you are. At a time of crisis people look to their elected representatives to be present and engaged. A little less time on Twitter perhaps? And use the time saved to spend just a few minutes being present on here wouldn't go a miss....you can just as easily access this as you can twitter from your phone - which you seem to be able to find the time to do on a very regular basis ;-)

James, you have yet to respond to my question on your concerns about the latest Dulwich Village traffic proposals creating traffic and pollution chaos for your constituents due to traffic diverting away from the affected area. I am sure you can multi-task and respond to our questions about this issue whilst we all deal with Corona-virus and that you don't use it as an opportunity to try and change the narrative and ignore our questions/concerns.

The council needs to encourage people to do what we did today - get people knocking on elderly neighbours' doors and tell them that if they need anything all they need do is ask. Give them a contact number and reassure them that their neighbours are there for them. Many may be reluctant to acknowledge they need help at this point but just knowing that someone is willing to run to the shops for them and is looking out for them will be very reassuring especially when the directive for the elderly and vulnerable to isolate for 12 weeks comes into play.

Are the council allowed to do reinvest money raised from that to other services - I thought they were, by law, only allowed to spend money raised from parking charges back on road infrastructure?

The challenge with these no-go areas (as they found to their cost at Loughborough) is that ambulances find it hard to get anywhere in a hurry around the no-go area - I very much suspect that Lordship Lane will becoming increasingly difficult for emergency vehicles to get along due to the increased congestion - and as we all know from the constant sirens ion the area it is a well used route for the emergency services.

That's a lot of extra traffic for the roads around the impacted area! The council is approaching this like they approach most things: we know best and we will do what we want because you can't do a thing about it! This project appears to be following their usual modus operandi for such schemes: mislead and heavily spin information, consultations rigged to get the answers they want; engage with a few cherry-picked residents and use their voices supporting their plans to drown out anyone who opposes them, roll-out whatever you want as no-one will ever hold you accountable. See how Cllr McAsh has mobilised to "engage" with people living on Melbourne Grove, it'll all be part of the plan to gather as much data as they can to make a stronger case - they even have leaflets printed. https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1231554193275736065 We all know how those discussions go: Cllr: "Did you know someone (not us of course we wouldn't do this to you) is closing a huge part of the village to traffic and we think your road will be used as the cut through" Resident: "Wow, really, that's bad" Cllr: "Would you like me to try to get your road closed to through traffic?" Resident: "Errr, yes please" Cllr: "Great, bye" Resident: "Hang on, who is doing this - the council, but that's you" Cllr: "Bye, got to dash. Healthy Streets and all that....power to the people comrade!!!" Or something along those lines anyway ;-) I do hope Cllr McAsh responds to the other thread on the subject as I will be intrigued as to what his position on it is as it will be his constituents who bear the brunt of the increases in traffic and, unlike the CPZ, I am not sure he can rely on local resident support for such a hair-brained scheme.

It looks like the council are spinning things to their advantage.....looks like the 47% is the difference between 2017 and 2018 when traffic found another route due to the roadworks in DV for the improvement works but look it returned in 2018 which suggests it found another route during the roadworks...thereby making a very real demonstration that these plans will merely divert traffic elsewhere. Goldilocks, were these stats presented at the same meeting where the council claimed their improvement works at DV had not increased pollution when their own data showed it had?

That must surely give significant grounds for appeal for anyone who has received a ticket? Speaks volumes that the council can't even manage to take down the old signage.....

Cllr McAsh, you may have seen the on-going thread about the Healthy Streets proposals for Eynella Road, Court Lane, Townley Road etc and I am wondering whether you have any concerns that the constituents throughout your ward (and not just those you have been canvassing around Melbourne Grove on the issue) will be the ones to suffer from increased congestion and pollution as vehicles try to find a way around the proposed closures?

I agree that reducing road capacity has to be a long-term strategy but you don't do it one street/section of streets at a time - commmon sense suggests that it won't work. Let's take your thought-experiment and look at it slightly differently - given traffic doesn't flow freely throughout the city then why do think people do drive? It can't be through choice because it isn't a pleasant experience. Perhaps it is because other options do not work and driving is the least worst option? Additionally, there has been a significant increase in the number of vehicles on the road due to the proliferation of home delivery services and services like Uber (Uber has 45,000 vehicles in London alone). So this isn't solely linked to the high number of private schools in the area - it is a challenge faced by all parts of London as consumer habits change and it puts more pressure on the existing infrastructure. And to your point on Walthamstow - yes, their public transport is much better than ours but our council likes to use such examples as a proof that their plans are a good thing without ever applying specific local intelligence to it. And the danger is that it is the residents of the area as a whole that feel the broader impact of their lazy planning.

Goldilocks - it is 100% accurate - I am not sure what you heard from the council (perhaps they are spinning something different verbally - who'd have imagined it hey ;-)) but the Dulwich Village Monitoring Report of May 2019 clearly says: Air Quality: comparing before and after data shows that there has been a moderate increase in NO2. You can find it here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich. Scroll to the bottom of the page under Related items and you can read it. What amazes me is the carte-blanche given to councils to do what they want without any accountability. It is clear that the changes made at DV have worsened congestion, pollution and safety and yet some on here blindly say "yup, we'll have more of that please" without considering the broader impacts of a badly designed initiative. I am all for doing what we all can to help resolve the issues caused by pollution and congestion but this is not the way to do it - and that is obvious to everyone bar the most hardened of anti-car campaigners. What the council is suggesting is a pollution disaster waiting to happen - look already the debate is spreading to extending the programme to Melbourne Grove too (which is inevitable) - whatever next Lordship Lane too?

They are contributing to the climate emergency: their changes to the DV junction over the last 18 months has created more pollution (their own research demonstrated this) and these measures will do too. For all the changes to the DV junction to create safer routes for cyclists very few are actually using it - have they asked the question why? To build measures based on the presumption that people will stop using their cars is naive and a deliberate dereliction of duty by the authorities - similar measures elsewhere have been utterly ineffective - they merely push the congestion elsewhere, slow the flow of traffic and create more pollution. Until there are properly planned and well thought plans that are inclusive of ALL modes of transportation then this city will never make any progress.

Such a package of measures should not be implemented at all. It is obvious this is going to cause huge problems for anyone living outside of the car-free area. Nevermind just Melbourne Grove - that traffic is going be funnelled all across the remainder of East and West Dulwich. I wonder what any of the current local councillors think of the proposals as this will impact their constituents? They can't be oblivious to it.

If such journeys are quicker by the south circular then why do 7,000 cars use DV every day - they're not all private school journeys as many on here would like to believe? (And my analysis was based on the suggestion that going via Tulse Hill was an option). Loughborough Junction was not junction by junction - it was an area-wide closure of roads and access very similar to what Southwark is proposing for DV - Lambeth went through the same process, presented the same regurgitated facts about pollution and healthy streets, went through a consultation period that ignored the input of pretty much everyone, implemented it on a set date and sat back as utter chaos followed. After it was implemented they ignored the pleas of local residents both inside and outside the car-free area who said it wasn't working, they even ignored the pleas of the ambulance service who said the gridlock it was causing in the surrounding streets was putting lives at risk. Lambeth finally relented when Kate Hoey had to intervene (it is telling that they only listened to one of their political comrades!). Any rational person could look at these proposals and see that the impact is going to be huge and that the problem isn't being dealt with, it's just being moved somewhere else. Hurrah for those in the area, bad luck for anyone outside it. BTW does anyone know what work is being done at the DV/Court Lane junction at the moment that is causing the big tailbacks into and out of the village?

Which by my reckoning would add at least an additional 1.5 miles to a 3 mile journey...so a 50% increase in pollution by an increased journey length. Then factor in the number of additional cars also making that journey because of the closure of DV to through-traffic (remember the council reckons there are 7000 cars going through there a day) and the A205 and other roads become more choked with traffic and so the cars spend more time in high pollution idling mode stuck in traffic.... Do you see the issue here....the problem here is Nimbyism....all the council is going to do is move the problem from one area to another and create more problems than there were originally...? And some may say that people will stop using their cars...well maybe 10% might but even then there's still a lot of through traffic to contend with elsewhere (6,000+ a day) and by looking at the council's own numbers a tiny number of cycles use that junction despite the alterations made to it which may suggest that it isn't a route cyclists want or need to take. Just speak to anyone in Lambeth who lived through the Loughborough Junction debacle for a real-life case-study of what will happen. The impact was so catastrophic (in terms of congestion and pollution) to the surrounding areas that Lambeth had to reverse their plans.

Exactly....the traffic will go somewhere it always does...anyone noticed how the traffic is particularly bad today? It's because there are a load of roadworks that have been thrown up as the council spend their remaining FY19 budget before year end and everyone is trying to find a route around the worst of it. That's our world if these plans go ahead. When I look at the plan I wonder how anyone coming from Brixton area is supposed to get across to the upper part of Lordship Lane - they may normally use Townley or Court Lane. Would they then be expected to drive along EDG, turn left onto Lordship Lane, then around the Goose Green roundabout and back along Lordship Lane? Yes something has to be done but closing a large chunk of the borough to through traffic is not the answer - it will make matters a lot worse for anyone outside of that one area.

Can't agree more - progress will only be made when planning policies are cognisant of every road user and every catalyst for the challenges the area faces. Unfortunately the council doesn't see it this way and is focusing solely on the car and car users as the problem - (Lambeth tried the same with Loughborough and it backfired massively and cost the tax payer a fortune to fix the issues - but of course because Labour has a huge majority in Lambeth there was no accountability). It is far more nuanced and complicated than that and Southwark's heavy-handed approach ultimately benefits no-one (except for maybe the vocal few on a few streets who now benefit from the council's plans). I did laugh when a poster wrote on here that they were fed-up with coaches and cars dropping kids off around the Townley Road area and will be glad when they are gone - therein lies the issue - there is so little empathy for anyone else's life nowadays: as long as you are alright Jack then everything is good - sod everyone else! We saw it with the CPZ and the vocal few who were championed by the council and used as nothing more than a trojan horse to get the plans through. The council's approach to planning is lazy and motivated by political views that the car is evil (and a healthy dose of wealth and car ownership is evil too) and they will love the fact (if they even bother reading what people in the area actually think anymore) the debate on here turned into one about the private schools rather than the fact that they are trying to close off a huge part of our local community to through traffic that will cause huge issues elsewhere. I am saddened when I read things like Cllr McCash's musings on private schools where an elected official can only see the world through his own politically motivated eyes and everything is black and white, good versus evil and there can never be anything more balanced or pragmatic. When you start to review all of the local council's decisions through that looking glass you then start to see what is going on here....."leafy" Dulwich is a bit of an irritation to them.....

Penguin hits the nail on the head.....if you then also throw in the suggested root-cause of the congestion being private schools in the area then the powers-that-be in Tooley Street start salivating uncontrollably. Most of our local elected officials view the schools with utter contempt - here's Cllr McCash's view on the them from his personal blog: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/labour-can-abolish-boris-johnson-if-it-promises-to-abolish-the-private-schools-that-created-him School congestion is not a private school problem - it is a school problem - we live close to a state school whose catchment area is supposed to be 800 metres yet every day the roads are blocked by people dropping the kids off from cars. Exdulwicher - doing nothing is not an option but do you have faith the council's plans will yield the desired results without massive impact elsewhere? A pragmatic review of the proposals alerts us all to some major flaws in the proposals and suggestions. Doing nothing would have been the preferable route of action before the previous DV improvements the council embarked on - in hindsight that was an utter disaster and a waste of money that has caused more congestion, more pollution and made the junction more dangerous (for all road-users and pedestrians). Creating a no car zone in the middle of Southwark may keep some local residents happy but makes life pretty awful for everyone else - those cars won't go away they will use a different route. But, once again, this is another case of our elected officials pushing something they think is in our best interests when really it is in their best interests. This is not a consultation exercise it is a plan validation exercise similar to the one they went through for the CPZ. Tooley Street won't be happy until they have squeezed everyone who lives in, and I quote Cllr McCash, "leafy" Dulwich for everything they possibly can. They view Dulwich, and its leafy surroundings, private schools and perceived wealth as an area to despise and attack.

Bels123 Slide 16 highlights the point beautifully....the council thinks people use Dulwich Village as a "short-cut" and they want to stop that from happening. If it is is being used as a short-cut that suggests that the cars won't disappear they will go another route - if it was purely school or local traffic you could lobby to say that these measures would force people to cycle or walk but it won't. These are through-journeys and those 7000 journeys will be forced along other routes. This is a carbon copy of what happened at Loughborough Junction - they shut off car access to one part of the Lambeth and it caused chaos in another and it was a disaster of the highest order and cost the tax-payer a fortune. Some of the more cynical amongst us might suggest that the improvement works Dulwich Village were deliberately designed to create congestion and increase pollution to allow them to accelerate their grand plan...a bit like the extension of double-yellows across ED to create parking chaos before the CPZ consultation...

Bels123 - I had read the documents to inform my decision but, as I am sure you will have noted yourself, the document doesn't say where the cars were going....it tells you the direction in which they are travelling not where they were going.....that last bit is pretty important (I learnt that bit in O level geography some years ago when doing basic road traffic management lessons)....because only then can the council, or local community, possibly make an informed decision on the impact of the measures they are suggesting i.e. are the majority of car movements school traffic, local traffic or through traffic? My personal feeling is that it is through traffic - hence my informed prediction of catastrophe.....;-) What do you think it is? After the CPZ debacle do you actually trust the council to do anything other than force through what they want rather than what the community wants? Do you actually believe this is a consultation process? If they push this proposal forward they will have to do something with Melbourne Grove as that would become the next logical route for people to take when Townley gets restricted and then they would need to deal with the left turn only onto Lordship Lane from ED Grove. But as with Loughborough junction councils tend not to worry about knock-on effect or consequences of their actions - they just do what they think is best for their objectives. We've danced this merry dance before with the CPZ and we don't have to have soothsaying capabilities to determine where it is going to end up.......

It doesn't take a traffic management genius to look at the plans the council are suggesting to realise they are fundamentally flawed and will cause a disaster for the other areas around it - unless of course you live in a car-free utopia dream world where your image of a modern city is a long way removed from reality and you believe people will suddenly stop using their cars for these journeys. Lambeth's Loughborough folly proved that the utopia is a long way from reality.... Has Southwark presented any information on to where people are heading when they use that junction - do they know? If not, I think they should as that would be very telling and probably essential to assess the impact of the measure. But we all know they won't as they don't actually care for a proper consultation or review process as they demonstrated throughout the CPZ debacle.

Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's - bombing in and out of London during the rush hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but I would ask how many of those were driving that route previously or whether, as more likely, they were train and tube commuters who decided to get a bit of exercise to and from work?

Rahrahrah, is not the closing of the whole of one side of Dulwich Village to through traffic not ever-so slightly disproportionate...I know you are a big fan of cycling and walking everywhere but surely you must be able to realise that these proposals are nonsensical and will do nothing to solve the problem but make matters worse and create gridlock elsewhere? There is a reason why people use that intersection and it is not because they want to - it is because they have to. Not every car journey is a pointless journey and many are by necessity because people cannot cycle or walk - unfortunately the cycle and pedestrian utopia many dream of will never exist because life has changed and people are living further and further away from the places that they work, educate and play in. By closing sections of a city to road users who happen to be in cars doesn't help the problem - it makes matters worse. That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just magically disappear - nor will people stop using their cars on the basis of this - they will just find another route. That's what happened with Loughborough junction and it is what will happen here.