rollflick

This is a shame as Lambeth is finally moving forward on extending the cycle route along Rosendale Road: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/better-fairer-lambeth/projects/healthy-route-brockwell-park-gipsy-hill The Turney Road scheme would have created an appealing cycle route for all ages on the missing link between there, Dulwich, Green Dale etc. But now it's back to the drawing board, for a scheme that some vocal local drivers have been objecting to since 2015. In those eight years no one has come up with an alternative that would credibly meet the objectives of creating a coherent route, meeting safety standards and cutting motor traffic. Saying that we need a "better design" is not going to magically change the fact there is no alternative given the road's geometry. Unless you mean trying to drive the cycle route via the junction outside Herne Hill station instead, which would cause a lot more inconvenience for all due to the complex signal phases required. The underlying problem here is that Southwark bid for £1.8m for this scheme from TfL, more than the rest of all other measures it bid for put together. Besides being yet another example of its terrible financial planning and prioritisation, officers haven't learned from the flaws of the first junction redesign, which demonstrated the importance of trialling measures with temporary materials first. Also there is no need to apply to DfT to designate the road for public events and has not been since this case in 1999 clarified the public's right to use public highway: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm

It's about £5 a day or just £2.50 for 5 hour visits, once you've used up the initial 10 reduced price visitor permits. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/visitor-s-parking-permits Yes I find it difficult to believe the costs of plumbers etc. these days, but this works out as a tiny amount like 1 or 2 per cent extra for a boiler service, while helping reduce congestion etc. through modal shift. That said there are already plumbers on bikes: https://www.treehugger.com/uk-plumber-conducts-business-by-cargo-bike-5188214 And, as the roll out of low traffic and parking zones continues across Southwark, we'll see ever more bike-based businesses in our borough appear in directories like this: https://broughtbybike.com/

The petition is hilarious, it states "Active travel should of course be encouraged but again the CPZ proposal does not appear to have any relevance to active travel. Congestion charge and ULEZ already means that people use vehicles sparingly and considerately so again the proposed CPZ will not impact on this." Great that it doesn't want to be seen to oppose active travel but both these assertions are nonsense. C charge doesn't apply south of New Kent Road while almost all vehicles here already comply with ULEZ and there's still lots of traffic: by contrast a CPZ does discourage both driving and ownership. Also as shown on so many other Southwark streets once a CPZ goes in there are fewer cars parked, dramatically so in many cases. That makes streets far nicer to walk and cycle on, even before space is then reused for bike parking, benches and parklets. Anyway it's too late to challenge as Southwark has committed to a whole borough CPZ by 2025 in its (transport) local implementation plan and it is now legally required to deliver this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/151 The consultation is an important opportunity to consider the location of restrictions and hours of operation of the CPZ to help meet the borough's climate and air quality targets.

It's staggering how much better - as in clearly presented, easier to view on small/old screen, transparent, honest - Lambeth's consultation for a West Dulwich CPZ is than Southwark's for a Nunhead CPZ. Compare https://westdulwich.commonplace.is/proposals/controlled-parking-zone/step1 with https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/nunheadcpz2022/ Whatever your views on parking, LTNs etc - and clearly we'll never see consensus here on those! - can't we all agree that better consultation is needed, that our useless council really needs to pull its socks up and that it really shouldn't be hard for it to learn from others?

It's been Southwark policy since at least its 2011 transport plan to discourage driving through parking charges, the problem is the CPZ consultations are misleadingly framed around questions like "do you find it hard to park your car?" rather than "we've committed to discourage traffic through managing parking, how best to set fees and restrictions to achieve this?". Southwark is legally required to follow the Mayor's (as in Sadiq) Transport Strategy - and Southwark's current local implementation plan, which it has a legal duty to implement, commits to borough wide CPZs by 2025. There are new CPZ consultations for QR Peckham & Nunhead that yet again fail to mention this. Anyway compared to Islington where annual permit is going up to £860 for the most polluting cars and Lambeth where it will be up to £500, Southwark is yet again failing to live up to its promises about doing all it can for the environment, such as by discouraging the vehicles with the biggest impacts through graduated charges. https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?id=8414&LLL=0 Reducing parking is important not just to cut pollution but also replacing asphalt with trees and planting to absorb heat and flash flooding as 40C summers become common. East Dulwich is a particular hotspot where this needs to happen urgently. e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62243280. Other boroughs have been investing parking revenue in climate adaptation for a decade.

Told that management is telling posties to prioritise packages, letters are going to wait until 2023. Covid is leading to staff shortages, e.g when drivers go off sick, so the letters aren't getting delivered to the places where those on foot rounds can deliver them. And there's an ever growing mountain of mail in the delivery office. This is for SE15, apparently it's even worse in SE22 - don't you need telling! That said the last few years (pre-pandemic too) round here there's been no mail for weeks, with Xmas cards posted after early December typically arriving mid-January. Left wondering how late they will arrive this time around!

40% of passengers at Peckham Rye are interchanging, a lot of those that aren't access the station on foot and many of the pavements are of totally inadequate width. People spill off them onto an empty street then buses suddenly whizz along. So long as there's a new stop at the top of Copeland Road, one-way for buses would be much better. Otherwise there'd only be space for minimal pavement widening. One-way should be southbound as much of the demand comes from ED, so that would be best for winter evenings. Rather than spend lots on a new permanent layout or "trial" two-way buses, something we've known for a decade doesn't work well (see background to the Sustrans scheme, link below), Southwark should be trialling one-way access. https://pocketplacespeckham.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/bye-for-now-from-sustrans/ With the next stage of the station square redevelopment supposed to start soon, requiring demolition of the buildings next to Rye Lane, one-way working will be needed for a year past the site anyway. So let's make the most of it and trial a new bus stop on Copeland Road, rather than having no bus stops near at all for another lengthy closure. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/peckham-and-nunhead/peckham-rye-station-square

Smart meters help reduce leakage as they enable water companies to identify leaks faster - they can see how much water is flowing into a neighbourhood and how much is being consumed. They can also make you aware of leaks in your home faster. Only have an old school meter, hope it will be upgraded soon. Honestly the idea that those who are economical with water should subsidise those who leave taps running, water large lawns etc belongs to a different era. All the more so with rainfall predicted to decrease in summer as the climate continues to warm.

Is this what comes to mind when the rest of UK talks of "trendy East Dulwich"? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10785019/Neighbours-accuse-banker-trespassing-building-loft-conversion-close-1-5M-home.html Think the homes in question are actually on the ED end of Bellenden Road.

just got link, subscription has gone up to ?40 so a 33% increase! (the first year in 2019 was ?25 as only June to April) Reminder that the govt said a year ago that garden waste shouldn't be charged for as it reduced recycling and increased fly tipping...

In case you were thinking of going back to the office next year by train... "We?re working on a major four-year package of upgrades to modernise 1980s track and signalling on the lines into London Victoria station. The first phase of work, to take place at weekends between London Victoria, Clapham Junction and Balham, and the West London Lines from Clapham to Shepherds Bush, got full underway in 2021 and will continue until after Christmas 2022. Upgrades between Tulse Hill, Peckham Rye and Crystal Palace, and between Herne Hill, Nunhead, and the Battersea area will follow between 2022 and 2025." https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/sussex/london-victoria-track-and-signalling-upgrades/ Includes helpful diagram: although ED doesn't have trains running into Victoria, it is in phase 4. There's also big plans to unblock the lines around East Croydon maybe starting before these works finish.

Had a look at Dulwich Alliance website, which says "controversial plans to close Dulwich Village junction and Melbourne Grove have been around for years...we need to reduce traffic in ways that take all needs into account. We can only do this through creative thinking and by taking collective responsibility toward the community as a whole" Yes people have been concerned about traffic here for years, the council ran multiple consultations asking for ideas, surely plenty of time for creative thinking to have come up with alternatives that won't annoy these people? Except those alternatives don't exist. The evidence-based interventions proven to reduce traffic all boil down to charging for or reallocating space from private motor vehicles, whether driving and parking, to make sustainable alternatives relatively more attractive compared to driving. All things that the usual suspects will, indeed have jumped up and down about: CPZs, bus lanes, segregated cycle routes, filters. It's telling this latest anti website is unable to propose anything constructive, simply calling for more time for wishful thinking to work its wonders. This is a demographic that's gorged on cakeism. See p138 "Focus on mode shift and traffic reduction: inner London" http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lip3-guidance-for-borough-officers-preparing-lip3-2018.pdf Yes there are also some measures about freight too but would have limited impact in this area, worth doing at borough level though.

Wondering if we can have a Sainsburys staff mask update - about a third today were either not wearing masks or letting them hang beneath their noses, making them pretty ineffective. Not great with the Mayor declaring a major incident today. Oh and no queues but no ice cream tubs either, other than a few diet versions the freezer shelves there are empty.

The area around East Dulwich has had one of the biggest increases in walking and cycling casualties, according to new data from TfL (see attached). SThe area between Barry Road and Lordship Lane saw over a 400% increase (dark crimson) between 2007-9 and 2016-18 (i.e. between two three year periods). Generally the part of the borough south of Camberwell Church Street and north of Court Lane plus east of Peckham Rye (the road) saw one of the worst increases in London. NB areas shown in white such as Peckham Rye park had insufficient data to show a statistically significant trend. This doesn't *necessarily* mean it has become riskier, as there has been a big increase in cycling and an increase in population too, though there certainly has been a big increase in driving through minor roads at the same time as less motor traffic on Church Street / Peckham Road. It does mean the council hasn't been doing enough, indeed it's done hardly anything in this area other than a 20mph speed limit and the gesture engineering of its stupid Spine cycle route. Next time the council says it wants "More walking and cycling", maybe time to ask them how it plans to meet its targets of radically reducing casualties on our streets. All the objective evidence points to reducing the domination of these streets by motor traffic and parked vehicles. Source: p209 in Travel in London report (link at end of page) https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/tfl-press-release-new-tfl-data-shows-significant-increase-in-walking-and-cycling-since-the-pandemic-started

Balanced article about the council run meeting last week on East Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-vows-to-create-coherent-plan-for-east-dulwich-low-emissions-neighbourhood-scheme/ I definitely count myself in the middle category, supporting the principle but not all the detail, e.g. agreeing we need "more connected cycle paths to create longer routes, rather than piecemeal areas". Also suggest the council should do something to make the north (station) end of Melbourne Grove more inviting. Why can't they move the car parking bays so that the cafes etc. can have outdoor seating. Realise it's cold but on days it's sunny it would be great to have more places to sit out to catch up with friends/family while being able to support our local businesses.

Peckham Rye car park largely empty because everyone parking on Strakers Road leading to it through the park, as it has no parking restrictions on it! Besides the cost of introducing restrictions, there is more visual impact on the park with a line of cars parked along the road through it. Honestly how could council staff not foresee this happening?

Meanwhile Virgin down again today 9-5 (actually was from 8) "for essential works...to ensure you get the absolute best from our services". Lost count of downtime days this year, VM are total jokers.

Southwark has published plans for a trial bus & cycle gate on Peckham Rye, between Nunhead Crescent and Nunhead Lane. Only buses, cycles and authorised vehicles (refuse & emergency vehicles) would be allowed through at any time. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91051/APPENDIX%201%20PECKHAM%20RYE.pdf Bus delays have grown in Southwark, even before the surge in driving post-lock down. So bus lanes, bus gates and reducing parking on narrower sections of road are essential if we are to have better bus services. Especially now as increasing delays mean a given number of buses can make fewer runs on a route, meaning more BUS FULL signs. The thing is, this is not a delay hotspot, not least as buses only operate southbound. Indeed most buses through Peckham operate on the *west* side of Peckham Rye, where this scheme will make congestion *worse*. Southwark even consulted on a new bus lane slightly north of there in 2016 but seems to have forgotten about installing it: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckham-rye-proposed-bus-lane/ Even that wouldn't be enough to mitigate the effects though. The scheme is also supposed to help cycling, as this is the future route of Cycleway 35 to Catford. But TfL's collision data shows its the sections immediately north and south of here (plus also the western side) where cycling is unsafe and where Southwark drew up plans for cycle tracks three years back but has done zilch to implement them. Here it's very safe (one of the few collisions involved a cyclist in 2017 and no other vehicle). Plans to remove car parking would in any event enable separated cycle lanes to be installed anyway. Likewise the scheme is supposed to help walking but it's the west side that's harder to cross and where the collisions have been. Inevitably making changes to streets to increase sustainable travel will provoke disagreement, particularly in the short term when things bed in. However I'm left wondering if this is scheme where there need not be such disagreement- as there currently appears scant objective justification for it. That would be a shame as it could damage the case for the bus gates that Southwark needs elsewhere.

First Monday 8am after filters installed, so before traffic has settled down and also the return of schools. As the attached shows traffic is free-flowing. Where there is congestion is the ED Grove/ Townley junction, as usual. Google Maps not showing all the filters, so likely to be extra drivers having to do u-turns. Yes that junction does need addressing too. Area wide measures to encourage modal shift (not least a borough wide CPZ) would be helpful in reducing congestion there, on top the next stage of Dulwich healthy streets. dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Congestion is far worse right now than it has ever > been *because* of these closures. Whilst the > fortunate ?few? are benefitting from lovely clean > air, everyone else is having to put up with > increased air pollution.

Having been one of those people suffering with Virgin Media outages and sharing info on here, thought I'd pass on some good news. Full Fibre (Fibre to the Premises) is being rolled out in Southwark at the latest by March 2021. There's lots of BT markings appearing in last fortnight on pavements around Bellenden Road so could be sooner, expect more roadworks too. However this is only extending south as far as the New Cross exchange / old 071 code, so about as far as Oxenford Road, ED Road, Peckham Rye. Maybe less of an issue for those of you served by the Dulwich exchange, who can shop around. For some of us the copper wires back to New Cross are in such a bad state, any provider other than Virgin was limited to 2Mb. Map attached from https://www.openreach.com/fibre-broadband/fibre-first

With Islington and neighbouring Bromley this week being in the top ten councils seeing a spike in COVID cases nationally, and Lambeth also having a significant increase, closing Rye Lane was clearly the right decision to help prevent an increase in Southwark. Before lockdown, 40% of the vehicular traffic on Rye Lane was pedal cycles. Sure it's more than 2500 per day now and this will only increase with more filters going in this week, e.g. Bishopsgate and Walworth. https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/86015 Telling everyone on two wheels to walk isn't going to walk on a major cycle route, you'd need police every 100m. In the short term Southwark should burn off the yellow lines etc. to reduce the perception of the kerb and then mark a 4.5m strip down the middle as a cycle track. That would make things simpler and clearer than everyone going everywhere. There's also a massive need for cycle parking to encourage all those people cycling to stop and spend, especially around Choumert Road and either side of the station. Next Southwark is planning to make Peckham Rye east side (the bit by the Rye pub) cycle & bus only, with access for residents. Maybe the Consort/Copeland Road junction could be made into a mini-roundabout, allowing just cycle & bus access into Copeland Road, so there's a stop closer to the station.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2020/jul/rye-lane-temporary-closure Rye Lane is being made walking and cycling only from Monday 6 July, with buses diverted and trolleys to help shops with loading. Seeing how busy the footways have been, this seems months overdue, so better late than never for social distancing. The change may last longer than COVID as it will help the works around Peckham Rye station. This change will increase motor traffic on Bellenden Road and Camberwell Grove however, as happened during the closure for gas works. Camberwell Grove forms part of cycleway 17, the same route Carlton Avenue is on. Clearly the council will need to take urgent measures to filter rat-running through this area too.

No it's not piecemeal, both Melbourne Grove and Carlton Avenue have been designated as cycle routes, that's a key part of the reason they've been prioritised, and rightly so. There are six times more signs than legally required to sign the traffic order. Carlton Avenue could do with more advance signing though but that should happen as the scheme bids in. Google Maps does show Carlton as closed but not MG yet. Just like the SUV driver who didn't "see" the signs, the planters or the people on the pavement she wanted to drive round ('Oh sorry it was a mistake'), so people on this thread don't see the need to cut out rat-running for these cycle routes to appeal to more people. Instead the keep moaning about how this is piecemeal and fail to provide any credible alternatives. Honestly.

It's a great improvement for walking and cycling. Hope the half of carriageway by the hairdresser/ shops can be made walking /seats only, with bikes going round the other side of the island. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------ > That said, CPZs only entrench the idea that cars have an unquestionable right to dominate public space. Personally, I > would like to see a lot of space reallocated away from car storage, to prioritising bikes and people. Well the Peckham West CPZ has done exactly that, lots more space for social distancing now on some of London's narrowest pavements. Hope the council can extend CPZs soon south of ED Grove, where pavements are narrow too.

The experimental traffic orders to close the streets clearly need to be made to apply 24/7, as indeed they were when made last week. The way these orders are designed is that they can be loosened (e.g. exceptions added) rather than tightened during the experimental period. So if there really are disproportionate problems outside peak hours, that could be easily changed. Now let's just get on with the experiment and focus on requiring Southwark to communicate more credibly and transparently about the results from its monitoring. The actual impacts will be hard to work out as the background traffic situation is not normal or stable, so you can't simply ascribe impacts to the scheme. A dialogue between supporters, opponents, councillors and council staff is urgently needed to agree some ground rules about how this 'living lab' will work. Off-peak is definitely important to measure. The most health benefits from active travel (let's not forget either that COVID-19 affects the overweight etc. more) comes from enabling a wider range of people to walk and cycle more, especially those who aren't working. Likewise if we are to make Dulwich Village a place to linger during lockdown, so helping local business, a different balance between driving and space for people is needed daytimes and weekends.