Rockets

....until such time as the impact is so negative on the majority that we do a U-turn... It's happening now...all across London...Londoners are saying "This is way too much and your rushed and poorly planned and ill-conceived plans are far more negative than positive". My biggest concern, and this should be yours too, is what is happening now will set the discussion on sensible plans back years as no politician will want to go near it when they realise their careers could end on the back of this...I think ExDulwicher referred to it as the third-rail...don't touch it... It's no coincidence that Cllr McAsh hasn't been on here for over a month...he knows that he needs to distance himself from any dialogue on this...

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour > of > > these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in > the > > case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if > > they're quick enough they can block off both > ends > > of the roads at once and trap some cars inside. > > You see, that is the sort of selfish and > ridiculous attitude which splits communities and > doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on > solutions not spite. Metallic, completely agree. Most people on here want a fair and balanced approach to managing pollution and congestion issues and the reliance on the car. Unfortunately, comments like Mr Chicken's show just how bad the fanaticism has become and why there seems to be no reasoning with many elements of the pro-cycle lobby and why, ultimately, a more balanced approach will have to be taken because politicians will realise that their political future will depend on who they side with - the fanatics or the majority.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Studies indicate that on average, over-all traffic > reduces by 11% (with a road closure). Is there any > evidence that this drop in car use would not be a > benefit to all local streets in terms of air > quality? If at best we can hope for is a 11% reduction then the 89% displacement is catastrophic for the surrounding roads. Therein lies the issue with these plans - the numbers just don't add up. Take the DV closure, when you remove the 11% it leaves thousands of cars finding alternative routes which is why there is traffic chaos in surrounding areas. Phase 2 of the council's plans is merely chasing the displacement and trying to move it further away from the original closures to massage the stats to prove it is a success. It's not, it's a house of cards that our councillors are forcing to crash to the ground. It's why Bromley are taking legal action against Croydon as Croydon's closures are creating havoc on some of Bromley's roads. Take a read of this from One Dulwich (LTNs the controversy) to help explain why some of the LTNs that are heralded as a success may not be quite what they seem.. https://www.onedulwich.uk/news

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > JohnL Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > If roads like Derwent Grove are made > > > > effectively > > > > > dead ends - what do things like the bin > > > lorries > > > > > do? Or delivery vans? > > > > > > > > > > > > same as they do for Cul de Sacs (the posh > > name > > > for > > > > dead ends) > > > > > > cul de sacs often have turning circles, don't > > > they? - no where for a bin lorry to turn in a > > > narrow straight road. > > > > They will have to reverse the length of the > roads > > after collecting the bins and then reverse out > of > > the roads onto either Lordship Lane or East > > Dulwich Grove depending on which end the > barriers > > are. Isn't that going to force them to perform > an > > illegal driving maneuver of reversing onto busy > > roads? Also they can't be too pleased with > having > > to reverse down the length of a road. Surely > the > > council would need to do some sort of risk > > assessment? > > Rockets - Just to clarify, the plan is to put the > barriers at the Grove Vale end of each of these > streets. I am assuming that this is to address the > argument I (and no doubt others) made to the Goose > Green councillors when this scheme was initially > pitched, which is that the scheme would end up > worsening air pollution on Grove Vale running past > Goose Green school. The NO2 levels outside Goose > Green school have previously been assessed as in > breach of government and WHO guidelines (although > I?m conscious the school has worked hard with > green screen initiatives to try and mitigate > this). > > In practice however, even in Summer without school > traffic, the Goose Green roundabout is already > struggling to cope with the increased burden > caused by road closures elsewhere, so much so that > I?ve witnessed it at a standstill more than once. > There is therefore in my view a very high > probability that come Autumn, the combined impact > of all these closures will cause queues of idling > traffic outside Goose Green school, in > circumstances where they did not exist previously. So the bin lorries will need to reverse out onto East Dulwich Grove from each of the closed streets. Are they even permitted to do that - surely there an HSE person in the council having nightmares about that!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In fairness, eD generally does answer questions > > and no doubt will this one. > > > > slarti b Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > exDulwicher, It looks like you don't want to > > > answer my question about which roads the > > traffic > > > displaced by the OHS scheme would end up > using. > > > > > Any reason why please? > > If traffic doesn't move then people will find > another way - that's the plan. > > In Wales they've just cancelled the M4 bypass amid > moans and fury - but traffic schemes are being > cancelled everywhere. Just maybe people know > something about the future we don't - it's going > to be driverless. You're absolutely right, people are finding another way and that is why the surrounding roads around the DV closure are so congested and polluted....which is exactly the point we are all trying to make...;-) So is the plan working then, close one road to force everyone onto other roads to slow journey times and increase pollution? Some plan that is.... And your claim that the future will be driverless isn't quite right as autonomous driving is some way off and will require significant infrastructural investment and 5G to make it happen....;-)

Rebs_ED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If roads like Derwent Grove are made > > effectively > > > dead ends - what do things like the bin > lorries > > > do? Or delivery vans? > > > > > > same as they do for Cul de Sacs (the posh name > for > > dead ends) > > cul de sacs often have turning circles, don't > they? - no where for a bin lorry to turn in a > narrow straight road. They will have to reverse the length of the roads after collecting the bins and then reverse out of the roads onto either Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove depending on which end the barriers are. Isn't that going to force them to perform an illegal driving maneuver of reversing onto busy roads? Also they can't be too pleased with having to reverse down the length of a road. Surely the council would need to do some sort of risk assessment?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From page 4 of the pdf I linked to earlier: > > "The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the > median ? which is a better measure of central > tendency here, given the variability of results ? > was a reduction of 10?6%. > In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the > vehicles which were previously using the road or > the area where > roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could > not be found in the surrounding area afterwards." > > That's from a collation of 60 high quality studies > (the pdf references 100 but when analysing them, > 40 were not of suitably high quality or not > long-term enough). Further info and details in the > pdf. > > It can be quite heavily dependent on the area, the > measures imposed, the ratio of population with / > without cars and so on but the figures are broadly > comparable worldwide indicating that weather is > not really a factor. > > The problem with this is due to covid the > alternatives (public transport) do not exist so > lots will just sit it out... > > That is the current elephant in the room. Trains > are back up to about 30% of pre-Covid levels now > which is beginning to make social distancing a > problem on some services. However the pattern of > use has changed - the morning rush is more spread > out and (because it's summer holidays, because a > lot of offices are not fully open) some of the > issues are on services down to the coast - > basically people going to the beach for a day out. > Buses are still a bit of an unknown quantity - TfL > was reckoning about 20% of pre-Covid levels of use > overall but that's offset by a significant drop in > usage in the city as there are far fewer people > there at the moment. That said, it does exist as > an option - I've used ND to London Bridge a few > times and the 176, 40 and 185 services with no > issues. In fact public transport at the moment is > as good as it's ever going to get. Far fewer > passengers, no queues, no standing and, because > there are fewer people the level of service (in > terms of on-time) is excellent. :-) So my guess of about 10% wasn't wildly inaccurate...;-) Now let's flip it on it's head...can the surrounding roads absorb the 80% to 90% of increased traffic due to the closures? Does anyone ever model that into their plans? If we are trying to achieve a 10% reduction then I suggest there are far less disruptive ways of doing it than the path our council, and others, are following and the fallout will be far more damaging. Trying to squeeze more water down the hosepipe of surrounding roads does not lead to evaporation...it leads to burst pipes...just look what happens when Thames Water deals with a pipe or water main leak, they fix it in one place and then 50 yards down the road a new leak appears and they just chase the leaks down the pipe because the infrastructure cannot take the increased pressure and something has to give. Surely no-one, other than the most hardened pro-cycle headbanger can defend all this disruption and increase in pollution elsewhere for a 10% reduction in car use? Cue responses from hardened pro-cycle headbangers...;-)

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're conflating displacement (where the same > amount of traffic is moved from Route A to Route > B) and evaporation (where some vehicle journeys > previously made on the now inaccessible Route A > are made by alternative means - the active travel > plans obviously focus on cycling and walking but > it could also be car-sharing, public transport or > simply that people change their habits - for > example only driving to the shops once a week > rather than three times). > > Hammersmith Bridge is quite a good example, it's > been closed long enough to have some reasonably in > depth assessment done on surrounding traffic and > pollution levels. > > https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/p/179/traffic > -evaporation > https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/has-closing-ha > mmersmith-bridge-really-improved-london-s-air-qual > ity-4731 > > There's a PDF of a metadata study on the subject > here which, although rather wordy, also manages to > keep the maths to a minimum. > https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019- > 05-23-5343-Disappearing%20traffic%20-%20the%20stor > y%20so%20far.pdf > > There's a reasonable chunk of data and info from > places like Hackney and Waltham Forest which have > had similar measures (back when the popular term > was Mini-Holland) for a lot longer than Dulwich as > well. Yes and for those who live on the route to Hammersmith bridge they have seen a huge decrease in traffic but speak to those living near the neighbouring bridges and they will tell you an altogether different story.... Exdulwicher - what is a realistic figure for evaporation in situations like we are seeing in Dulwich. My feeling is that of you're lucky to might get 10% of people switching (during summer months).

The fact that the protagonists for these changes continue to use the phrase traffic evaporation does make me chuckle....everyone knows that anything that evaporates then condenses and falls elsewhere....perhaps wonderfully highlighting beautifully the folly of these closures. They just push the problem elsewhere. And the point on Amsterdam is well made, a very different proposition to London yet continually heralded as the answer. Anyone who bothers to scratch beneath the surface would see that whilst it is a beacon of what can be done when traffic planning embraces all modes of transport you can't apply it to London in any form.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ideas around streets are changing. If the > street is a living space where people can do a > mixture of things it is no longer simply a highway > with parking space. I know this subject is highly > charged and I don't want to add fuel to the fire. > But it is worth imagining the way streets could > change. > > The idea of traffic 'evaporation' is well > documented and worth believing in. > > https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evapora > ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods- > on-main-roads/ And anyone who studied geography will tell you when something evaporates it condenses and then falls as rain elsewhere....which is exactly what these closures cause....

Has the school approved this version of the plan as I thought they had told the council they didn't think their plans were going to help with the problem they were trying to address and actually make matters worse? I had also heard the majority of the school's teachers drive and park locally and we're worried about the impact.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm being mostly tongue in cheek but as someone > who's desperately trying to hang on to her job, > keep the people I am working for happy, work > efficiently but still mostly from home and > desperately trying not melt in this heat, I can't > help but feel as if people have way too much time > on their hands to be ratcheting up the pressure > and counter-pressure to this level! > > A lot of people are bored and frustrated. > Furloughed or WFH, schools are now properly on > holiday too, a lot of people will have had foreign > holidays cancelled or changed and it's lovely > weather. So basically a lot of people with a lot > of time on their hands. > > Most of the time it's fairly harmless - someone > walking round on stilts is a bit eccentric but not > really an issue. Having impromptu music gatherings > and Strictly Come Dancing re-enactments without > thinking about the fact that, y'know there is > still a global pandemic and this is still a ROAD > and people still want to travel along it is > towards the more selfish end of the spectrum. I > doubt anyone has even thought of it has an event > or campaigning - to them it'll just be "a bit of > harmless fun". > > It's that national lack of common sense on display > again. Completely agree. As ever everything becomes so polarised, on the one hand someone cuts the monitoring strips thinking that will somehow scupper the programme or to make a childish point and on the other you have a group who are trying desperately to force turning a grotty bit of tarmac into a village square and an epicentre of entertainment to help their narrative. Both great examples of the extremes of the argument and neither of which reflect the views of most of the people on either side of it.

I agree, seems very heavy handed to do both at once without assessing the impact of one. I wonder if the council need to raise all the funds they can due to Covid impact and are desperate to get some cash heading their way.

Perhaps Cllr McAsh might revisit the forum and grace us with his thoughts as it is clear that since the barriers went up traffic and pollution has increased significantly across his ward. One presumes that he is concerned about the increases in traffic caused by these closures.

Can anyone provide rationale as to why the CPZ measures are currently needed, especially given than most of the roads impacted are now going to have permeable filters? Since Covid started, and given this is likely the new normal for well into the New Year, is parking continuing to be a problem? Surely the money being spent on this could be channelled more effectively elsewhere to have a more positive impact?

If they want to organise events in the middle of the road good luck to them. I think the images that come from it powerfully communicate and resonate why this closure is completely ludicrous, self-serving and benefiting a few of the local (wealthy) residents whilst causing chaos and havoc for everyone else and I don't see anything in the videos they put out that doesn't scream that! Don't get it banned - it's a very powerful visual metaphor! ;-)

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The goings on at that junction are annoying now > - there was some sort of musical duet there a > couple of > > weeks ago, people standing around. It's still a > road - there were still cyclists and pedestrians > and a > > couple of people on mobility scooters looking to > get through it all and finding it quite difficult, > > > especially to maintain social distancing. Not > going to be long before some idiot dancing in the > "square" > > collides with a scooter or cyclist and blames > the legitimate road user. > > As I pointed out, interesting to see our > Councillor turn up to support. Southwark Events > have confirmed that the organisers have no licence > to use this space as none are being issued under > Covid measures. > See above posting Yesterday, 08:02PM. Which councillor - James McAsh?

He hasn't been answering questions on anything for some time...not just the closure of DV which he supported and actively used to lobby the residents of Melbourne Grove to gain support and lobby for his proposed closures of said road......

Is that why we haven't heard from Cllr McAsh in such a long time? ;-)

Jet-A1 fuel has very distinctive exhaust smell and as someone who has lived under the flighpath of both Heathrow and City airport for many years I have never noticed it. Are you sure it is aircraft fumes - I presume it was an an aircraft approaching to land? Remember most aircraft on approach are essentially gliding and the engines are pretty much in idle - although many will have reached the bottom of their descent over here and might be using power before they lock onto the localiser and glideslope a few miles west of here (for Heathrow).

I love the way they celebrate the fact the "Square" has been created whilst the newly-created A-road that is Dulwich Village roars in the background. I may be tempted to complain that they are blocking a major cycle route with these events....;-)

Interesting discussion with a cab driver today - he was saying that a some of the "Covid" road closures are being removed in East London (East Ham area) due to push back from local residents....the council there has realised they are causing more problems than solving.....

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!