Rockets

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.

I like the way the council highlights Village Books at the epicentre of the new schematic - has anyone asked them for their opinion?!

Goodness me...these plans are as bad as the Loughborough Junction debacle initiated by Lambeth - will these councils ever learn? And for those of you unfamiliar with the Loughborough Junction mess read this (it will all be such a familiar process for those who watched the ED CPZ unfold): https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/motors/crunch-day-looms-over-traffic-experiment-a3107976.html Let's be honest, the problems experienced by Dulwich Village have been caused, in large part, by the improvement works the council carried out which have made the area more congested, more polluted and more dangerous for all road users and pedestrians. It seems that they plan to cut the area off from car access to completely rectify the problem that was of their making. As Lambeth learnt with Loughborough Junction - just shutting off one area to vehicular access does not solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else and Lambeth had to relent and remove the measures - but only after significant political pressure put on them by their own party HQ. The same will happen here - the impact to the wider area will be huge. But as we know from all of our experiences with the CPZ the council will power through with this initiative regardless of what the local people actually say or want. They will take testimony from a few of the local residents around Eynella, who will no doubt think this is a fabulous idea, ignore the views of the masses and come to the conclusion that they know what is best for us. They will suggest that due to traffic displacement the scheme must be extended to Melbourne Grove, Burbage and Turney and they will create a no traffic island that will mean anyone living or going about their business either side of it will be massively impacted. Lordship Lane and the surrounding roads will become even more congested and gridlocked. The fact such a thing is even being presented shows just how out of touch Southwark is and the disdain with which they hold anyone living in the area. When are the next local council elections......?

This issue has little to do with police numbers - the catalyst is the fact that school children now carry phones and high-worth items and are seen as easy prey by the muggers. Even in the halcyon days of booming police numbers you could still get mugged and there wasn't a police officer on every street. The difference is of course during those days the mugger would end-up with one piece of Hubba Bubba chewing gum, a Pepe keyring and an old bus ticket rather than an iphone, air pods etc....

Abe - spot on. If memory serves me rightly the last council accounts showed a ?6m+ surplus from CPZs, car parks and parking fines which was re-invested in roads. Those who campaigned hard for the CPZ got their wish - very much at the expense of everyone else - the numbers for and against in the consultation speak for themselves and we are all smart enough to see how the council "adapted" the consultation to fit their objectives. Hurrah for the "winners". Unfortunately, we will all have to live with the consequences and I am sure those who thought they won will be amongst the first to bemoan the boarding up of shops along Lordship Lane and the loss of a unique local community.

We can but hope that David is waiting for the right moment......but he won't play his hand until the landscape within the Labour party has changed massively. Any moderate entering the fray will get wiped out with the current structure. How Labour didn't elect him leader is beyond belief - it was the beginning of the downfall. Corbyn peaked with 100,000 Islington'ites singing his name at Glastonbury - it has been steadily downhill from there. The fact his is still in the leader's seat after that humiliation and the fact the different factions are starting to take swings at each other is merely validating why a lot of people wouldn't/couldn't vote for him - the party is in complete disarray and I am not sure it is going to get fixed anytime soon.

And Dame Margrate Hodge has just said that Labour has beoome the nasty party (which let's admit it is something when you're running against the Tories). Momentum are blaming the media but they really need to look at themselves. The Marxist strategy may have been palatable for the born-again champagne socialists or the Socialist Worker wielding activists but was not at all palatable to many of the electorate. Of course Brexit played a part but only because Labour failed to determine a clear strategy. Labour has neglected its grass roots and now has some difficult decisions to make. I, for one, hope they abandon the hard-left angry politics and rhetoric and return to the centre-ground - Momentum has, unceremoniously, ground to a halt and the party needs to rid itself of them. The fact that the last-time Labour had such a hard-left position was in 1983 and they have just done worse than even Michael Foot ought to speak volumes. The party needs to change or it will die.

The first results aren?t even in yet and Labour sources are calling for Corbyn?s head saying this is all down to him and his cronies. If this is even half close to accurate it is worse than 83. This country was ripe for change after years of terrible Tory rule and Labour dropped the ball massively - I hope they learn their lesson and return to a more centre-left electable position.

I think Corbyn has to resign if he loses (you can't lose two elections and continue to lead) and I very much hope it allows the more moderate wings of the party to re-take control and give us a Labour party that is much more electable. Of course, this may all be a moot point if he is successful tonight but I cannot help but wonder if there was different leader of the Labour party who wasn't so divisive that they would have romped home with this election.

Failing to address the rampant anti-Semitism within the party. The divisive anyone with wealth is evil rhetoric. The spin over the NHS and Trump. The lies (even over something as straight-forward as whether Jeremy watches the Queen's speech) The origins of the leaked documents. The costed yet un-costed manifesto. The doctoring of videos to misrepresent the views of others (yes, Labour did it too) The use of a 4 year old boy as a political football The blatant attempts to try and bribe elements of the electorate with "free stuff". The constant attacks on any media that they don't think is toeing the line or dares to question what or how they are trying to do it. The holier than tho attitude when their own house is not in order The endless virtue-signalling Need I go on? And do not, for one second, think I am somehow defending the Tories, I am not, they have run a gutter campaign too. The reason many people are struggling with this election is because they are torn between voting for Boris and his ultra right-wing cronies or Jeremy and his ultra-left wing cronies and many people, unless they are wearing blue or rouge (;-)) tinted glasses, really don't want to have to vote for either or want either at the helm of the country.

I think the propaganda about the NHS was dropped because 1) it was categorically dismissed, in no uncertain terms, by the Tories and Corbyn couldn't flog a dead horse (the 4 year old hospital picture was well timed to do that) and 2) the suggestions are it had been sourced by Russians with links to the Russian Intelligence community. It quickly became a hot potato that Corbyn needed to drop. Whatever happens in this election I very much hope that the losing party distances itself from the divisive, hate-laden rhetoric that we have seen from both sides and we see one of the big two parties positively position itself more centrally so people can vote for someone with a clear conscience. Both parties have been scraping the bottom of the barrel over the last few weeks and can't say either of them ran a campaign they should be proud of.

Seabag - to be fair, a lot of people think this all started when Labour elected Ed rather than David to the leadership role which gifted the Tories the election in 2015....if David had been elected it all could have all turned out oh so differently....