Rockets

Looks like the council is preparing for the next round of road closures. This, according to Cllr McAsh's latest newsletter....https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/goose-green-newsletter-summer-2020. Take a look but it looks like the council are now desperately chasing the displacement issues they have caused by the Melbourne Grove closure. All together now...."we told you so".....;-) At the time of writing, the permeable filter on Melbourne Grove south has already been installed (this had been considered initially as part of the Our Healthy Streets scheme so these plans had already been developed). 2. We will request that further permeable filters are installed on Melbourne Grove north, Elsie Road, Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent. 3. We will request that adequate monitoring is in place for these streets and those nearby, including East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove, and Zenoria/Oxonian Street. 4. We believe that Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street should be considered for the next round of measures. 5. We have formally requested that the junction of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove be considered for further measures, including potential traffic lights, when funding is available.

James, Can you clarify what you mean by no issues? There are always long queues of people outside M&S, the Post Office and William Rose and the pavements are narrow at those points. There are also choke points outside SMBS Foods, GBK and Franca Manca - perhaps you should wander down and take a look for yourself.

In case anyone missed it Cllr McAsh posted on the Covid forum yesterday the following note about the council finally looking at more social distancing measures on Lordship Lane. If anyone is seeing any issues that the council isn't able to see it might be worth letting Cllr McAsh know because he seems to be suggesting there are no issues other than outside Moxons (which was addressed). I have asked the council to do an investigation of the pavements on Lordship Lane to ascertain which sections need further measures. Using previous suggestions we looked at the following areas four times last Saturday - Post Office area - M & S - Stretch of shop @ Moxon?s - William Rose Butchers With the social distancing measures in place around Moxon's, all four areas showed no issues. Do others have different experiences? Or are there other places we should look at insteaD? Best wishes James

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the village > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 minute > diversion at most. 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all stacks up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle on this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council have their way you won't be able to use Townley either so how much more time would that add onto future journeys?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 25 years ago London population 6.8 million and is > now 8.8million. > Forecast is London population will increase from > 8.8 to 10.8million residents over the next 25 > years. > If the same ratio drive then driving gets much > much harder. Roads much more congested. Even the > same ratio of people walking, cycling see's many > more people travelling by these methods wanting > and demanding better conditions to walk and cycle. > Public transport becomes ever less pleasant with > over crowding. > > Doing nothing makes everyone cross and would be no > way to try managing this huge population > increase. > Trying to make changes to reduce the proportion of > car driving for journeys will also cause huge > angst, and worry for those who are essential car > drivers. It has also been proved time and time again that closing roads as the council has done does indeed reduce car use on that road but creates an increase in both congestion and pollution on other roads and an overall net increase overall. Just look at the last round of improvement works at DV, it increased pollution. Just moving/displacing the problem isn't solving the problem - it's lazy and short-sighted.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I made a point of checking Effra's concerns > about > > East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for > myself. > > > > 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - > virtually > > no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm > > going north from the village had circa 15 cars > > just before going green which all passed > through > > on green. > > 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights > go > > green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 > bus > > queuing going East. All passed through on > green. > > Private schools are on summer holidays which > will > > reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East > > Dulwich Grove is not. > > > Hardly an official traffic census on all roads in > and around the changes James > > It's a bit like the pro cpz brigade saying on > Tuesday last week my road was so full of cars you > couldn't get a piece of paper between them we > demand a CPZ > But on the Anti CPZ brigade say on Thursday there > were loads of spaces I don't see your problem > > Without a recognised before, and after survey over > a sustained period (not just a snap shot as used ) > then there is no evidence that it is or isn't > working > Casual observation and hearsay isn't evidence ! > > The real issue here is lack of proper supporting > evidence or consultation by the council and > without it people are rightly going to complain. > If you want to do something to help then try > campaigning to get the council to actually engage > and listen to the full population and not just the > vocal locals who shout the loudest. James, perhaps you can help us ask Cllr McAsh why there was, and is, no monitoring on the roads being most impacted by this? He seems to have been less willing to engage via this forum since the beginning of the people-led revolution! ;-)

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes close lordship lane and further damage the > businesses who have already had a tough time. You might to be onto something here - close Lordship Lane, make it pedestrian only and then make Melbourne Grove the by-pass for it. Remove all parking along Melbourne Grove and then that will keep the activist residents happy as it will remove the commuter parking they were citing as the reason for the CPZ. ;-) P.S. for all of those without a sense of humour this is a joke

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does anyone know if there are any plans to > reduce > > traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne > > Grove being closed to through traffic). > Anything > > to improve Lordship Lane? > > This should hopefully be on the cards. These > initiatives don't work in isolation, and > unfortunately making the area better for active > transport holistically is a chain of deeply-unsexy > measures like kerb dropping, better pedestrian & > cycle lane provision and overall traffic > reduction. > > Unfortunately you have a huge status quo bias from > drivers, who want everything to be exactly the > same, with nothing to inconvenience them. Ideally > following a lovely long, circular consultation. > > CPZ? No. Close a couple of streets to stop rat > running? Absolutely not. Cue local NIMBYs in SUVs > shouting themselves hoarse and getting leaflets > printed, for essentially what is their right to > drive 2km to the shops, for the modal part. > > There's over 36,000 deaths from air pollution a > year in London, I'm not sure endlessly consulting > on these things is working. Hopefully we'll see > more action from the council soon to keep up > momentum. I am not sure you will find anyone on this forum calling for what you claim from the driver's perspective - in fact, the only bias demonstrated throughout this and other posts on the subject is invariably from the anti-car brigade - more often than not myopic and prejudicial (yourself included as I am not sure there are 1,000 SUVs in Dulwich!). What people want is something more balanced - something that considers all road users whilst managing the pollution crisis not a sledgehammer approach that actually causes more congestion and pollution (as is happening now on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and the A205 and happened after the first DV works). Surely you can see that the DV and Melbourne Grove closures are creating far worse problems across the area? Those 1,000+ people who have signed up for One Dulwich are not petrol-heads or NIMBYs in SUVs they are real people with real lives who are being impacted by, and can see through, the council's ham-fisted attempt to manage the crisis. What you are seeing is democracy in action - all I, and I am sure many others on here, ever wanted was for a fair and balanced approach that is inclusive of all the needs of the community. If the One Dulwich community action project helps delivers balance then I, and a lot of others, will be happy. For too long only one voice in the debate has been heard and that needs to change.

It looks like the maildrop is working - over 1,000 sign-ups now - it seems like One Dulwich have really hit upon something - many of us have been telling the council for a long time that they need to listen to more people and make their consultation outputs more reflective of community feeling as a whole rather than appeasing a small minority of the Dulwich constituents and inflicting misery on others as a result.

I suspect the residents who feel they have been ignored by the council are pulling out all the stops to get as much support as possible for their group (which is not pro-car they just want a more balanced approach to council decision making that impact all residents in Dulwich). One Dulwich have been very public in their request for people with relevant skills to offer their services to them so I suspect they have been deploying those skills when people volunteer their services. One Dulwich are now heading up towards 1,000 registered - the momentum is gathering pace, just look at the map of Dulwich where people have registered - it's pretty compelling. https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters By the looks of the amount of active One Dulwich de-positioning going on those who have had the exclusive ear of the council for so long are getting worried that the playing field is getting levelled.......

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am sorry that there are people thinking about > leaving the area. But we are talking about the > closure of Carlton Avenue to through traffic on a > trial basis. I would encourage you to wait and see > how it pans out. I would be very surprised if the > impact of this change on your life is quite as > severe as perhaps you imagine. Rahrahrah - would you agree then that at this point it isn't panning out too well given the huge amount of gridlock being caused on all the surrounding roads - the A205 is a nightmare, as is East Dulwich Grove and Dulwich Village now seems to have become a busy A-road with speeds increasing? I remind you that all of these roads have schools located on them. Do you really think the council is targeting walking routes? It wasn't that long ago that they were beating the drum about commuter parking to justify the CPZ. Does anyone have any faith that, beyond their well-publicised narrative that cars are bad, the council has the first clue what they are trying to do or target? And to Serena2012's point - the fact the council are not monitoring traffic on the roads where we are already seeing huge impacts from these closures is laughable - but, given the propaganda machine they roll out to suggest everything is great it doesn't surprise me one bit. Every time I read something from the council my mind takes me back to Comical Ali!

Also, i am not sure what point people are trying to make here about the Northcote Road weekend closures as all the closures around Dulwich aren?t designed to create more space for shoppers visiting high streets - our councillors have done diddly squat to assist social distancing on Lordship Lane bar the token gesture outside Oddonos, which came far too late. Also, the Northcote Road closures are weekend only probably as the council realises closing key routes there would be disastrous for the surrounding roads. Once again, the pro-cycle, reclaim the streets lobby scream look, look, look at what they have done and when you scratch beneath the surface you realise it makes what is happening around here look even more non-sensical.

lbsmith73 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I definitely consider myself a normal person > and > > not a petrol head and what annoys me more than > > anything is the attitude of the lobbyists we > hear > > from time and time again on here and elsewhere > > that whatever people do it is never enough. > > > > The council closes DV and we hear, during the > > celebratory proclamations, that this is not > > enough...we want more, more, more. They are > like > > addled drug addicts who need the next fix to > > satiate their urges. > > > > It is also their blinkered belief that because > all > > is great on the streets that they are dancing > jigs > > of delight on that everything is good in the > world > > and all those cars that used the junction have > now > > gone to scrap dealers. They haven't - they're > are > > clogging up other roads, spending ages trying > to > > negotiate the blockade of DV and creating even > > more pollution. In fact, I am very surprised > the > > council don't place sandpits in the roads > closed > > so the supporters can stick their heads in it! > > > > Here's a very real example of the impact on > local > > residents I experienced yesterday. My son was > > having a friend around yesterday afternoon. His > > friend was at a club on Gallery Road and I > offered > > that I would pick him up at 3pm. To get to > Gallery > > Road I would normally have gone via the DV > > junction and been there in 10 minutes. Now, > before > > the activists start baying that I should have > > walked or cycled I will get my defence in early > - > > I was trying to fit picking him up between > > conference calls, it was tipping down with rain > > and my son's friend didn't have a bike with him > - > > some very real world issues that are typical of > > why people chose cars over bikes. > > > > So, instead of a 15 minute round-trip it was 45 > > minutes. It took 20 minutes to get there (since > > the closure the right turn at the Grove Tavern > > from Lordship Lane is awful all times of the > day) > > and 25 minutes to get back. The traffic back > round > > the A205 towards Lordship Lane was backed up > all > > the way to college - very unusual for 3pm and > one > > can only presume because cars cannot get > through > > the DV junction to the eastern side of Dulwich. > > > > This is the reality of what these closures do - > > they have created traffic problems all around > > Dulwich and will be leading to a huge increase > in > > pollution. East Dulwich Grove is a nightmare as > > well. Dulwich is now ringfenced by permanently > > blocked roads that used to run pretty freely > until > > these moves. > > > > Of course, we will no doubt hear that the > closure > > has been a great success as the pollution on > > Calton Avenue has dropped but a few hundred > yards > > away pollution will be a lot worse but, of > course, > > the council won't be monitoring there (until > such > > time as they want to justify closing those > > roads). > > > > The council representatives have taken to their > > bunkers and are trying to ride out the storm - > it > > is so telling that after posting the surveys on > > every thread here to try and help justify the > > closures Cllr McAsh has been been pretyy much > MIA. > > You could always take an umbrella? Ha ha. there you go - validating my point entirely, the activists always have an answer for everything.....do you have an umbrella capable of time shifting as well?

One thing I think we can all agree on, especially following the post-election Labour party fiasco, is that the far-left don't score highly when it comes to scrutiny or accountability...;-)

I definitely consider myself a normal person and not a petrol head and what annoys me more than anything is the attitude of the lobbyists we hear from time and time again on here and elsewhere that whatever people do it is never enough. The council closes DV and we hear, during the celebratory proclamations, that this is not enough...we want more, more, more. They are like addled drug addicts who need the next fix to satiate their urges. It is also their blinkered belief that because all is great on the streets that they are dancing jigs of delight on that everything is good in the world and all those cars that used the junction have now gone to scrap dealers. They haven't - they're are clogging up other roads, spending ages trying to negotiate the blockade of DV and creating even more pollution. In fact, I am very surprised the council don't place sandpits in the roads closed so the supporters can stick their heads in it! Here's a very real example of the impact on local residents I experienced yesterday. My son was having a friend around yesterday afternoon. His friend was at a club on Gallery Road and I offered that I would pick him up at 3pm. To get to Gallery Road I would normally have gone via the DV junction and been there in 10 minutes. Now, before the activists start baying that I should have walked or cycled I will get my defence in early - I was trying to fit picking him up between conference calls, it was tipping down with rain and my son's friend didn't have a bike with him - some very real world issues that are typical of why people chose cars over bikes. So, instead of a 15 minute round-trip it was 45 minutes. It took 20 minutes to get there (since the closure the right turn at the Grove Tavern from Lordship Lane is awful all times of the day) and 25 minutes to get back. The traffic back round the A205 towards Lordship Lane was backed up all the way to college - very unusual for 3pm and one can only presume because cars cannot get through the DV junction to the eastern side of Dulwich. This is the reality of what these closures do - they have created traffic problems all around Dulwich and will be leading to a huge increase in pollution. East Dulwich Grove is a nightmare as well. Dulwich is now ringfenced by permanently blocked roads that used to run pretty freely until these moves. Of course, we will no doubt hear that the closure has been a great success as the pollution on Calton Avenue has dropped but a few hundred yards away pollution will be a lot worse but, of course, the council won't be monitoring there (until such time as they want to justify closing those roads). The council representatives have taken to their bunkers and are trying to ride out the storm - it is so telling that after posting the surveys on every thread here to try and help justify the closures Cllr McAsh has been been pretty much MIA.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except looking at where they?re based, quite a few > are in Lambeth and even some in Lewisham... > > > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They should listen to One Dulwich. 900 votes > would > > be more than enough to oust all of the > > councillors in Dulwich Village and Goose Green > > combined. A handful appear to be based in Lambeth and Lewisham but, let?s be fair, there is far more transparency on the One Dulwich supporters page than there has ever been on any council consultation document!

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > except that, D and S, OneDulwich is fake. It wants > the best for Dulwich Village Not all of Dulwich. Not entirely accurate. They certainly started as a group based around the streets in Area B but saw that these changes impact people across the area and are representing the area as a whole - they have asked supporters to help them consolidate any such measures being implemented by the council into a single concerted effort). The reason they are gaining so much support is that the council doesn't view the area as a whole (as demonstrated by the 68% of people who voted for no CPZ and the council tweaking things to ensure they got to put a CPZ in place). The constituents are responding to the need for an area-wide consultation and approach to these issues and a far more balanced and pragmatic approach - and given the attacks on One Dulwich by the pro-closure lobby they are definitely doing the right thing! The council needs to take note and change the habit of a lifetime and actually listen to the majority!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - TFL are not responsible for all London > roads, or the costs of the damage cars cause. The > amount of money spent on cars (and cleaning up > after cars), is huge and far greater than > infrastructure for walking or cycling. I can?t > believe it?s even something you?d honestly > challenge Rahrahrah - I am merely challenging you on your hyperbole - you often quote things that have little grounding in fact. That's another thing that frustrates people about the way this is all managed by both the council and the pro-change lobby - they quote nonsense and massage the figures to their own advantage - and the most glaring example of this is the 47% increase in traffic that the council grounded their DV Healthy Streets propaganda on - a complete lie. People dance in the streets and have street parties whilst around the corner life becomes worse for those impacted by the displacement. The issue here is that these changes are causing utter chaos, increasing congestion and pollution and you, and the other lobbyists, won't acknowledge that. Instead you implore the council to put more blockades in to try and deal with the problems they have created.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all agree something has to be done about > pollution... but not if it makes driving more > difficult. 🤔 Err no, not if it makes driving more polluting....remember the last DV alterations led to a ?moderate? increase in pollution.....

Rahrahrah, to address some of your points: >It's not that unrealistic to share a little of the public realm, through the opening of a couple of streets topedestrians and cyclists is it?Actually, most local journeys are incredibly short and could be done on foot. A little over a third (35 per cent) of >all car trips are shorter than 2 km. Some journeys need to be done by car - that's fine. But they are the minority >and a 5 minute diversion isn't going to make them impossible. Yes but by default that means two-thirds are longer than 2km which suggests the majority of journeys may not translate well to cycling or walking. Also, if you factor in children or bags of shopping the distance people are prepared to walk or cycle reduces dramatically. Within the same TFL report, from which you take the one third stat, they went on to say that the further out of London you go the more car use becomes more prevalent. They also go on to say that areas with poor transport links also have higher car use. As do those areas with a high number of families with children. All of the previous statements are interlinked and apply to Dulwich. You suggest that the number of journeys needing to be done by car is in the minority but I am not sure the stats back you up on that one. You say a 5 minute diversion isn't going to make them impossible. You're right, but that does increase pollution and congestion on the diversion route - which is counter to the whole point of having these measures. TFL's spending goes in this order: London Underground, Buses, Rail (including CrossRail) with Roads a distant 4th place. And I suspect if you were to analyse the space dedicated solely to car use over the last 5 years it has declined massively already - just think of all the dedicated bus and bike lanes that have been installed in recent years. I am not saying that is a bad thing but as some point you have to say this is getting a bit silly. I understand why you take 2 lanes of Vauxhall Bridge and dedicate that to cyclists (although bar the rush-hour the lanes pretty much sit idle) but can't see how closing off Melbourne Grove or Dulwich Village will have the same impact. I am not sure the evidence backs this up and for some time people have been saying that cycling has peaked in the capital - it's growth has trebled since the 90s but it still represents just a fraction of the number of journeys made in the city on daily basis (be that by public transport or cars). The cycling lobby say this is because more infrastructure is needed; opponents say it's because London is a megacity and too sprawling and the weather too unpredictable to entice the majority to switch to bikes. We get pitched examples from Amsterdam about how cities can become cycling friendly but Amsterdam is a fraction of the size of London. As someone who has commuted long distances on a bike to and from work in London I can tell you that some days it was utterly diabolical, especially in the winter. It's why the majority of those who do commute in London on bikes are an extension of the Mamil tribe - hardy souls who love cycling more than they love being comfortable or able to feel their extremities! ;-) For all the people posting celebratory pics of the DV closures and their children cycling and lauding what a victory it was I can guarantee you than none of them got on a bike today in the rain if they had to go somewhere! Nor will the majority of them be encouraging their kids in February to hop on their bikes to get to school and then cycle home in the dark. We all agree that more has to be done to combat pollution and to enable different modes of transportation more effectively but you don't manage that without a cohesive and well-thought out area wide plan that is inclusive and cognisant of all transport modes - chucking a few planters in roads is not a sensible approach and has been shown time and time again to create more congestion and pollution - see Loughborough Junction for a very local example. And given the numbers of households signing up for One Dulwich (800+ and counting from all across the area) it looks as if a lot of people are lusting for a more sanguine and balanced approach. For all our sakes, I very much hope they prevail.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just taken my first walk up Melbourne Grove > since the restrictions came in, and it's made such > a difference. Hardly any traffic, peace and quiet, > this is long overdue. I just hope the council has > the guts to face down the petrol heads and apply > more of these pinch points. I've been as guilty as > anyone of overusing the car for local journeys, > but our streets are just too clogged and polluted > and unsafe right now and frankly this is long > overdue. Thank you Southwark and London authority. How was it on East Dulwich Grove or Lordship Lane? Did the peace and tranquillity you so enjoyed extend to there or was traffic and pollution a lot worse because Melbourne Grove has been closed? ;-) And are we to presume you will be selling your car now you have seen the light?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want to reduce traffic, improve air > quality, and encourage walking and cycling, then > you have to restrict the number of car journeys. > It's pretty simple. > > The majority of people in Southwark don't have > access to a car. Most streets have two lanes for > parked cars / long term vehicle storage and two > more for moving traffic. This doesn't leave much > room for people. The amount of resource given over > to car drivers is completely disproportionate and > the reaction of people to a few pretty timid > attempts to reallocate a little space to make it > easier for people to get about, is pretty > incredible imo. > > 'One Dulwich' seem to be calling for local > residents to be exempt from restrictions applied > to others. If you live on Court Lane, or Carlton > Avenue, you're looking at perhaps another 5 > minutes in the car to get round the diversions. > Alternatively, if you're not going far and you're > part of the majority of people who are able to > cycle or walk, perhaps you could do so. After all, > they claim to be in favour of healthy streets. Just because the majority of people don't own a car in Southwark is not a justification for punishing those people who do - your comments highlight the reason so many people get annoyed by the utopian view of the world taken by some on the forum who hail the "turn all the streets to cycle only" narrative. It is a narrative and aspiration that is wholly unrealistic. I cycle. My whole family cycles. I also have a car. I cycle when I can but use my car when I need to - be that on journeys that are too long to cycle or involve transporting people or things that I can't get on my bike. I also drive when the weather is terrible - I don't like arriving looking like a drowned rat - I also prefer driving when it is cold, wet and dark. I used to cycle 10 miles each way to my office but don't anymore as my office moved even further away. This is how most people use their cars and blocking roads may reduce car use by 10% (if you're lucky). If people's eyes are blinkered by their belief that everyone can cycle or walk then they can't see, or are ignoring, the bigger challenges faced by a huge metropolis. Which is why a more inclusive and measured approach to traffic management is required. Not one that relies on the false promise that "Close the Streets and the bikes will follow". It just doesn't work like that. Rahrahrah - I presume you don't own or need a car?

Can I suggest anyone who has not yet commented takes time to negatiate the council's really biased questionnaire and posts their thoughts on the improvement works here by following the link below. It's really important that the council sees a true reflection of feelings towards these works as it seems those who asked for it have mobilised to post their "we love it" comments on the page. [dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is]

Dulres3 - absolutely spot-on. This is why so many are registering their support for One Dulwich. We all want less car journeys. We all want less pollution. We are all trying to walk and cycle more But we still have to use a car.... The utopians on here would have you believe you shut a few streets and you can scrap your car...it doesn't work like that in real life.....

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The goal is to reduce car use, I think most can > agree on that. > > Unlike parking proposals which can be seen as a > form of taxation these road closures clearly have > only one intention. The trouble is that road > closures effect different people in different ways > and it is hard sometimes to see the bigger > picture. And in the short term things get worse. > > It may be that the closures are misguided but the > pain of it has a purpose. We all subscribe to the idea that car use needs to reduce but council also wilfully ignores the fact that a very large percentage of traffic is not local traffic - you may close roads off and 10% more people cycle because they live within a stone's throw of their destination and they have found that driving becomes a massive inconvenience but the vast majority of journeys still take place - they just get funnelled down an ever decreasing number of route options which ultimately increases congestion and pollution and makes life a misery for many more people than those who benefit. Remember, the first round of DV works which were designed to improve the pollution led to a "moderate" increase in pollution. I use "moderate" as that was taken from the council's own report so we can probably interpret that as significant rather than moderate but the bottom line is the works created more congestion and increased pollution. These latest works are doing the same but moving the pollution elsewhere to an area the council will not be monitoring.