Rockets

Metallic - to be fair there's not a lot on the DV RA website that makes me think their concerns go much further than the "hardship" the residents in DV are having to endure....their thoughts are outlined below and they are lobbying to get Phase 2 put in quickly to close DV to traffic...which of course makes the problem a lot of worse for others outside of DV. Here is a clip from their website; In summary, we expressed the following views which reflect the balance of opinion among the 40+ residents we have spoken to: ? the junction closure has caused significant issues and in some cases real hardship for residents, particularly those living on Dulwich Village ? the phase 2 measures are needed to fix a problem which Southwark should not have created in the first place ? the key issue for our residents arising from the phase 2 measures is access; in combination, they mean that during the restricted hours, it will be very hard for residents on Dulwich Village to access their homes by car from the south, or for residents on College Road/ Woodyard Lane to head north (for instance to Kings Hospital) ? this raises many issues around carers, deliveries, hospital visits, mini-cabs ? we also pressed for increased frequency of the P4 bus, though in practice steps being taken by TFL are likely to reduce access to the P4 It also makes one wonder whether other RAs from across Dulwich are attending the meeting on Oct 20th and if not why only the group in support of the Phase 2 closures made the list. It will be interesting to see if their "delegation" is called upon by the council. What the council seems to be avoiding is a cross-area public meeting on this. I very much hope Oct 20th is a democratic event and not something that just appears as one-sided and biased as other council actions around this issue.

I think the cardboard section at the OKR site had been removed during Covid to allow for social distancing between the bays. The first time I went there during Covid (incidentally because the council stopped collecting recycling that was not in the blue bin - they had done previously) I was surprised there was no longer a cardboard section but glad to read it is back.

They are trying to rig it as they did the CPZ representations. They are trying to make it as difficult as possible for any dissenting voices to be heard and for democracy to prevail. Cllr McAsh would have been aware of this hearing date yet did not mention it. One suspects the councillors have alerted and mobilised the opposition. It's probably going to be a whitewash. It is ludicrous that they can admit their own (unlawful) failings in terms of a lack of consultation, can admit the current closures are causing pollution problems yet steadfastly stick to rolling out further closures. If this was the Tories they would be up in arms.

It will be interesting to tune in. Looks like the deadline to submit questions has passed...why do I suspect the pro-closure lobby would have been given a heads-up about this. I very much suspect the council will say they won't do anything until the 6 months has passed for each closure and will push ahead with their, unlawful, closures. Also interesting to see that someone set an e-petition up in support of the closures and it managed to get 29 signatures.....

As I feared. The council is seemingly accelerating and pushing ahead with ALL of the next phase of closures. They will only consult with residents after 6 months but ?before 18 months?. They are not going to listen to anyone and Cllr McAsh?s words are as hollow as I feared. The attached was just posted on NextDoor from a resident in the Peckham Rye area. They are not prepared to listen to the wider community. The only plus side is the chaos these remaining closures will cause will ensure more people engage with the campaign to get them removed. This council is completely out of control and we are very much suffering from the worst effects of a one-party state. They are will fully ignoring local residents.

All the councils are desperately trying to cling on to the closures but they all know the clock is ticking against them.

I think what Margy is trying to tell her pro-closure neighbours is that she has done her best to get the displacement traffic from the A205 closure diverted away from Dulwich Village. The irony is of course is that Dulwich Village is now experiencing exactly what other parts of Dulwich have to live with since the closure of the DV junction. You reap what you sow.... Also it appears some idiot drivers have been removing the cones outside the Grove Tavern - probably thinking this is another LTN and finding out it most certainly isn't!

Yes and DKHB does have a certain pattern to their ahem "discussions". We may have to rename them DogKennelHillBully! ;-)

And, of course, the numbers quoted by TFL are London wide and as you get further out of London so the journeys, invariably, get longer due to the lack of proper public transport infrastructure the further you get from the centre. So I very much suspect in an area like Dulwich the skew is much further towards the longer journeys, especially given Dulwich's proximity to the A205. And of course TFL acknowledges that the more children you have (you might have noticed there are a lot of children in Dulwich - Nappy Valley and all that) the less the opportunity to cycle.

We are caught between the very worst ends of Labour: marxists on one side and champagne socialists on the other....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rockets. > > So 67% of car trips under 3 miles. I would > describe that as 'significant'. But can they all be walked or cycled? A 6 mile roundtrip would be a significant distance for many would it not - especially given Dulwich is surrounded by significant hills on most sides? As I have said before I think you can make a dent in the 35% shorter than 2kms but that's about it. That leaves 60%+ that are most likely always going to be done in a car. And I would be very interested to know what TFL counts as a car journey and whether private hire and taxis are included with that.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A significant number of car journeys in london are > only a couple of miles btw. Let's dive a little deeper into that because I know Cllr McAsh said in his blog that the majority of journeys in London can be walked or cycled. Here's TFLs data 35% of all car trips are shorter than 2km. 32% are between 2km and 5km. 30+% are over 5km. What I can't find from TFL is whether taxis and private hire vehicles are included in these stats - which would of course skew them massively in central London. People can make their own minds up now based on the actual data.

Wow, they come in force next Thursday I wonder if that means all the roads get closed then or whether it permits them to install them anytime between Thursday and when they expire. This will be the death knell for these plans as they will cause such chaos that the council will have no option but to remove them all. I wonder if Cllr McAsh sent his "we're listening" blog as he knows the closure of DV will improve EDG and move the problem off his ward and onto someone else's.....hmmmmmm.... Rahrahrah - feel free to lobby admin to remove this thread as you do every time you read something you don't like! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > ----------- > > > So then, by default, you must recognise that > the > > closure (do stop using filtered - it's not > coffee > > and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the > DV > > junction is having a major effect on other > roads > > due to the closure of the A205? > > The roads aren't closed though, they are filtered. > Every street can be driven on and to. Residents > can also use their cars, get deliveries etc., it?s > just not possible to drive straight through from > one main road to the next. There is no journey > which cannot be done by car as a result of the > LTNs (although routes may be less direct), so in > no sense are roads 'closed'. Some roads do get > closed / pedestrianised - but that's not what > we're talking about here. > > > > I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the > traffic > > northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr > > Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout. > > So how what's the point you're making? This would > be helped by diverting traffic down court Lane, > through the village, down EDG to Lordship Lane and > then the Goose Green roundabout? Because I think > most people would probably just go straight down > Lordship Lane. Do you know anything about the road layout of Dulwich? Do you not think that some of the traffic coming down Lordship Lane today might be trying to go west but can't because the A205 is closed....surely by closing one of the only ways to get west from Lordship Lane that forces more traffic down towards the Goose Green roundabout and EDG - thus creating tailbacks along Lordship Lane.........

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee > > and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) > > The road is only closed at one end to through > motor traffic. It's open to motorised access and > open to through non-motorised traffic. Closed is > not the right word. Filtered is. Per Abe - they're closed. That's why the council labels them as such with big red signs that say ROAD CLOSED. And as you will know from your highway code a big red sign is a warning sign - so it is warning you the road is closed.....;-) You can call them what you like but per the council and the highway code the roads are closed.....

It will be interesting to see what happens in neighbouring Lewisham as it seems they are working more quickly to resolve some of the issues caused by the closures. I suspect many councils want to see what others do first.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sparrowhawk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Once again, it's hilariously obtuse to try, with > a > > straight face, to imply that Court Lane is a > 'cut > > through' or 'narrow residential street'. I've > > lived in Dulwich since the 1970s and that road, > > while residential, has always been a critical > part > > of the network for both local and through > traffic. > > It is wide, straight, perfectly capable of > > carrying a sensible amount of traffic...but is > > currently sitting almost empty. While other > roads > > sit in nose-to-tail traffic and pollution as a > > result. > > Court Lane is probably the exception, granted. > It's a relatively wide road (or at least one with > less on street parking than others). So then, by default, you must recognise that the closure (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the DV junction is having a major effect on other roads due to the closure of the A205? I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the traffic northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Before a few streets in Ed were filtered to > traffic, the closure of the South Circular in both > directions, wouldn't have even been noticed. The > roads moved freely and pollution barely existed. > Yesterday's traffic was almost certainly down to > lorries no longer being able to block EDG whilst > trying unsuccessfully to turn into Melbourne Grove > - that used to keep things moving. You ok rahrahrah - that's one hell of a U-turn you've just done! ;-)

I agree but it lacks any real substance or a definitive timeline for review and the fact Cllr McAsh suggests cheap fixes for Matham Grove etc suggests more may go in before they get to identify the source of the problem (which we all know they know what it is). It's a step in the right direction but the council needs to put the same energy into the review as they did the closures - they went in overnight so if they need to remove them they should come out overnight as well. The most telling part is the complete lack of coordination between the councillors in neighbouring wards which has led to the problems being caused by the closures - each focussed solely on trying to appease their constituents (ahem neighbours in some cases) and cared not one jot for the impact for others.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer > roads for people to find their way around the > closure?. > > I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to > stop this from happening. But don't you realise that by closing the junction of Dulwich Village that it amplifies the problems elsewhere in circumstances such as this? The A205 has been shut before but the gridlock has never been this bad and this is solely down to the fact certain roads have been closed. What you're saying is keep cars to A-roads. Only the most hardened pro-closure lobbyist (such as yourself) would categorise Court Lane as a "side road".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a hole is the south circular and peoples > solution is to divert all the displaced traffic > down side streets? I thought you were terribly > worried about traffic from side streets being > displaced on to main roads? > > I would ah e thought that this is exactly the time > for ensuring people have safe alternatives to the > car! Oh dear you miss the point entirely.....rahrahrah do you not ever get the sense you're losing the argument?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The situation was made worse when some dickhead > managed to push over the temporary plastic > barriers (installed on the pavement to replace the > permanent barrier some other dickhead knocked over > a couple of months ago) and an additional section > of permanent steel pedestrian railings...on the > corner of College Rd and the South Circular. The > steel barrier is now poking out into the roadway > and can't be moved. That happened right in rush > hour peak. > > > ...but probably that was also the fault of a > Stalinist planter outside a hairdressers... I'm sorry - what point are you trying to make here?

Of course traffic would have been bad with the A205 being shut but it is certainly made worse because of the LTN closures. That's commonsense as there are fewer roads for the traffic to try and find a way around the closure - especially east/west. If you think it is bad today imagine what it would have been like if the additional closures the council wants to put in place would have been in. It is, of course, an extraordinary situation but you have to acknowledge that having roads closed does create an impact and this is the second example in a week. The same happened after the motorcycle accident on the southern end of Lordship Lane this week. Police closed the road in both directions and traffic travelling southbound had no option but to go east and the areas around Upland, Goodrich, Dunstans became gridlocked as it was the only route around the closure due to the closure at DV. Of course, that was for a much shorter period of time but it does show the impact closing roads has. Interesting to see Cllr McAsh has been caught in the traffic chaos (one presumes on a bus or bike) and he responded to a post from the EDSTN lobby group as they got their defence in early (anybody else noticed that the pro-closure lobby groups are going into overdrive ever since Cllr McAsh's post on the LTNs).

Same thing happened after the nasty motorcycle accident on Lordship Lane earlier this week (an accident incidentally that queuing traffic contributed to) as when the police closed Lordship Lane near Overhill the traffic had no option but to go east and as a result all of the roads around Goodrich etc were gridlocked as they had no other option.

All, whilst many of us welcomed Cllr McAsh's comments yesterday upon closer inspection there is little substance in his post and some alarm bells are ringing for me. I posted on the Councillor thread but am pasting below some of the questions as I think a lot of the points raised by his post deserve some discussion and my concern is that there is not a definitive timeline for review being shared by the council (yet) and the displacement is now impacting all roads across the area (Underhill, Overhill, Crystal Palace Road, Upland Road, Wood Vale etc) as people try to work their way around the displacement. What we need right now is the same swift decisions the council made to implement these closures to review them and make the urgent changes to try and turn back the dial on the damage they are doing. - When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review? - We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using? - Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data? - Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them? - Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this. - Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place?