northernmonkey

Ha - I think that One Dulwich is just funded via people who feel strongly. Look at the area the supporters predominantly live in, they aren't short of cash. The website is a squarespace one, looks glossy but not so expensive and there are lots of retired people involved who have plenty of time to dedicate. Don't think that its anything sinister or funded by a 'car lobby' etc.

I'm disappointed that this has been waived through and that the clear misuse of data in the air quality information wasn't taken seriously. It may be that Charlie Smith has clear plans to how the effect of increased traffic volumes of parents driving can be mitigated - and if this is the case, then great. At a minimum though it feels like a wasted opportunity to get a school street on Hillsboro and Greendale and more patrols on Townley provided by Alleyns - private 'security type' personnel could have provided a valuable service in preventing illegal parking which is a large problem when the schools are fully in session as more parents compete to park in an area with insufficient parking to meet demand.

Sillywoman - journeys such as yours in terms of attending births are exactly the types of journeys that will still be needed and that in the most part may need a car (there will be some exceptions where people know someone who manages on a bike, but on the whole they will be an exception rather than the norm). However, without taking actions to actively encourage people away from car use more widely, the effects of telling people to avoid public transport will be a shift upwards in terms of car usage. Our roads were already very congested pre covid and the additional car usage could lead to even more gridlock which also won't help those who need to use cars for specific journeys. I understand that changing road layouts is more inconvenient than it was before, but the fact remains that all roads continue to be accessible by car. In terms of the CPZ, I'm not sure how much worse it will make your day to day life, so won't comment on that, but as a cost per year its not significant compared to the cost of car ownership - unless you're outside the zone and concerned about additional costs to your business of parking within it? - in which case surely as a private midwife, you add on the expenses separately as part of the fees you charge clients? sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lbsmith73 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think you are on to something there... Really > I > > am a car owner and to be honest all the traffic > > made me change my behaviours. I now cycle the 9 > > miles to work and it is quicker than driving > and > > the train. It keeps me in shape, saves on gym > > fees, good for the environment and you only need > a > > bit of wet weather gear from time to time. Not > to > > mention it has saved me a fortune in fuel and > rail > > fares. I know it?s difficult but change is hard > > and sometimes you have to look beyond your own > > needs. > > Marvellous. Good for you. Now how do I translate > that into my working life? > > I'm a community midwife. I travel 500 miles a > month from Fulham in the north to Epsom and > Banstead in the south and to Bexley in the East. I > have to carry my emergency equipment with me at > all times - 4 large and heavy bags and boxes that > fill my car boot. Includes resuscitation equipment > for adults and newborns. Impossible to do my job > without a car (I know, I tried to do it on a > scooter for a year). I live just off East Dulwich > Grove and the combination of these utterly selfish > and purposeless road closures - reducing the > routes to my home form the south from 5 to 2 - > and the soon to be CPZ means that my day-to-day > working life has changed significantly for the > worse. This means that after 25 years of living in > our home, and raising our children here, creating > a community, we are feeling forced to seriously > consider moving elsewhere. We don't want to, but > we might have to. > > Sometimes you have to look beyond your own smug, > self-satisfaction to see needs of others, and hear > the distress being caused to them.

It was great - but its a very small restaurant and i'd imagine social distancing could make it economically unviable. Their alternative offering sounds interesting anyway so its not all bad. Excited to see what they do next!

The fish and chip shop that was previously there sold terrible fish and chips - this is why it failed. Compare and contrast to Ken's on Half Moon Lane which has queues out of the door. If Maxim chicken is anything to go by, the new place will have a steady stream of customers

I think this is the key point. I don't care whether Alleyn's have 30 kids or 60 kids in their junior intake. What i do care very much about is the impact their model has on the air quality locally. The report talks vaguely about things that 'might be available' and cherry picks air quality monitoring ignoring the closest monitor which shows illegal pollution levels and picks ones further away on quiet residential streets which are restricted as school streets. To the extent that this planning permission is given i would like it to be given only on the understanding that Alleyns implement a school street on Hillsboro Road, Townley Road and Greendale. Preventing drop off right outside the school will be key to reducing parents driving there - and making the Hillsboro Road route safer provides an alternative cycling route to much of East Dulwich Grove for families cycling to school. DadOf4 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @jamesmcash - would really appreciate your > representation on this. Alleyns seem to be playing > the game of "this is only a tiny incremental > change". The fact is that ANY change to this > already unsustainable problem is not acceptable > > > I have no fundamental problem with a school > (whether state or independently funded) wanting to > create more classrooms - but I do have a problem > with a school that has blatantly shown disregard > for local traffic and pollution issues trying to > mask the problem through skewed reports and vague > initiatives. > > By way of illustration, the Upper School (6th > Form) handbook sent out to students only a week > ago > has a section on students who drive to school > "Pupils who drive to School must show due > consideration to our neighbours when parking, and > should not obstruct driveways, public > thoroughfares or access to properties" > > This is not a policy from an organisation that > genuinely is trying to reduce car use > > IMO this planning permission should only be given > on the basis that firm/legal commitments are made > on the initives that Alleyns claim they are > implmenting

I don't think Beckenham is open at the moment though (or at least it wasn't a couple of weeks ago) - so best to check before heading over there.

Such a lovely offer!

Again with the 'we' And - no! Also - didn't accuse you of being hysterical - I accused you of stoking hysteria with something that may or may not be 100% accurate! EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since we are asking questions. > > northernmonkey do you live on Melbourne Grove? A > search of your posts on the EDF suggests this > could be a possibility. > > Are you one of the local residents who pushed for > this proposal with local councillors? > > People could have: > 1) Emailed the same organisations to check the > details there are only three and they all have > on-line easy to use systems. > 2) Contacted Southwark to confirm or deny the > position, or > 3) Got on EDF and seeking to shut down anyone who > raises concerns with the current approach. > > Who benefits the most from approach 3? > > We have the evidence, it has been submitted with > our complaints, the appropriate bodies will deal > with the issues. > > Hysteria is a word which has been thrown at people > largely women over the course of history whenever > they seek to challenge the status quo.

It wasn't the original poster I was commenting on hysteria for - more that by saying 'the emergency services have been in contact and told 'us' that they weren't consulted', then it allows lots of other people to become understandably very concerned about the lack of consultation. This concern may or may not be valid depending on a) whether the statement is true and b) how it was made. Trying to understand facts and then act on them is not 'polarising'. Believing what an anonymous poster says at face value when it directly contradicts other statements on a subject and without any further clarification is one of the biggest issues with social media. Requesting clarification is not an affront! Also - yes, James is very 'political' - but I don't generally think that an affinity for Marxist politics, means that he would necessarily push through changes without the correct consultation. We don't know though, so again it would be helpful to have facts to ask the right questions!

If its true - it is a concern, but 'we have been contacted by one of the emergency services' followed by 'I'm not naming names' has some issues as an approach. Before hysteria sets in then its good to understand what the issue is and whether it can be addressed. Funnily enough I'd also like to be reassured that emergency services were notified of the changes and consulted as to any issues. If this hasn't taken the case, then I too want to raise this with the local council as, if true, its a concerning position- but as its directly at odds with the comments James has made re emergency services consultation then I was keen to understand this further.

We have also been contacted by one of the emergency services as they have not been contacted / consulted on in relation to the closure, they requested additional information. I am concerned the road closure will lead to poorer outcomes for emergencies. Just popping your original wording there so you can see how it reads EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You win, you ?outed me? I am an undercover > government agent living in ED??? > > I did not say they 'called me'. > > Seriously as much fun as this is, there is no > mystery in a previous post I recommended people > approach the emergency services with any concerns > or issues they had. We did that and they > responded.

Rockets - Lordship Lane has pavement widening on the stretch outside Oddonos / Mons / Moxons

Ok - an emergency service (as yet undisclosed) rang you as an individual person living on a street that isn't on the closure to ask for details? Just making sure I've fully understood how what is clearly a serious issue (if true) is being dealt with! Alternatively as you use the word 'we' throughout then maybe you're part of a wider group or organisation?

In what capacity did the emergency services contact you (all of them?) ? If they're proactively 'ringing round' it seems unlikely they haven't got in touch with Southwark too! EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We knew the barrier had been installed as the > traffic on Ashbourne Grove has increased already > with cars / vans from Melbourne Grove to Lordship > Lane in particular, a number speeding. > > It is interesting to note double yellow lines have > only been installed on one side of Melbourne Grove > South which would not allow for a truck or > anything bigger than a car to turn. > > In the 10 minutes we visited we saw over three > cars approach the barrier and turn down Tell > Grove, a small narrow road which is not equipped > for this high volume of traffic. > > We have also been contacted by one of the > emergency services as they have not been contacted > / consulted on in relation to the closure, they > requested additional information. I am concerned > the road closure will lead to poorer outcomes for > emergencies.

Slarti b: I'm not sure I understand your response above. You have stated that "Closing the DV junction, or restricting at peak times, by itself is not part of the OneDulwich concept" The One Dulwich 'tagline' is literally 'Timed restrictions, not permanent closures'. Can you clarify please?

Thanks Slartib Just picking up on the point about 'only displacing peak traffic' - doesn't this just end up with the 'worst of all worlds' for everyone. Seemingly the issue from One Dulwich is displacement - but your solution does nothing to address this during peak hours, whilst the maintaining open roads during offpeak hours does not bring the walking and cycling benefits that would be realised with the council's proposal. In additions @Dande - i see that you again have pointed to concerns for elderly neighbours and shopkeepers. I was just wondering what those concerns were? In the existing plans there aren't any roads that won't be accessible by car or any homes 'stranded' and the shops will still have parking outside on dulwich village and accessible elsewhere for others. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bels123 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > dande - ref your point 3. I?m interested to know > how you think the onedulwich alternative tackles > > the displaced traffic you?re worried would be an > issue under the council?s plan? > > > The Council itself has not stated how they will > tackle the displaced traffic under their own > scheme. Any questions about this have been > brushed aside with airy comments about > evaporation, though by their own estimate over > 6,000 vehicles will be displaced onto "major" > roads. This means EDG, SOuthern part of DV, > Croxted rd, Lordship Lane, Half Moon Lane, Burbage > South, South Circular etc. This a major flaw in > their scheme. > > All I can say is that if the DV closure is > restricted only at peak times the amount of > displaced traffic will be less than under the > COuncil's scheme. > > Edited to add > If you can provide detailed data for teh traffic > movements though the junction, ie O&D data or > traffic count data for all arms by time period we > can certainly come up with some estimates. There > is a certain amount of data in the "evidence pack" > and supporting schedules but it is quite > selective. And the Council and Councillors are > generally very reluctant to publish full > underlying data, presumably in case it undermines > their assertions.

Banning traffic at peak times isn?t the full story though is it? From the ?one dulwich? website: ?Instead, we believe that timed restrictions (stopping through traffic at peak hours, while still allowing residents access to their homes) would be a sensible and pragmatic compromise.? So not banning traffic at peak times, instead banning non resident traffic. I accept that it would certainly be quieter than now, but what is it about dulwich village residents that make them less likely to kill my child (directly or via pollution) than people from outside Dulwich. This is before you get to the question of who has permits, just those in area B? Or area C too? What about those on the next street? Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They specifically say they would ban traffic on > certain roads at peak times. > > This would allow timid cyclists and pedestrians > exclusive use of those roads at those times

Oh come on @snowy - where's the fun in that response? Haven't you learnt that its all a massive conspiracy?

ED AUS - you?ve posted the idea that local streets will see increased traffic from RESIDENTS of Melbourne Grove using other streets to drive to and from their properties or to have deliveries. There are a few points on this: 1. The vast majority of traffic on Melbourne Grove is through traffic, not residents coming and going. It?s a rat run/ short cut/ means of bypassing Lordship Lane. 2. Melbourne Grove isn?t actually going to be ?closed off?, just restricted at one end. Therefore residents can enter and exit at the other end if they want. 3. For access to eastbound destinations it will make sense for residents of Melbourne grove to use Ashbourne, chesterfield etc, but they will also be doing this now anyway. The traffic that will have to change behaviour is through traffic which again, was using Melbourne as a cut through. There may be separate concerns about how that non residential traffic gets to the main road in future but there really should never have been such volumes of traffic on a residential side street in the first place!

No - not at all - you've misunderstood. I'm not suggesting they attend for eg 3 days to get the same income as they previously got in one, I'm suggesting that different stall holders could attend on different days - this way the stalls could be further apart and there would be more reason for people to go there more often as would be different offerings.

I think that cycling has the capacity to feel very different from how it does now - which will mean a period of adjustment for many. For the few who are used to cycling fast (which is sort of predetermined by the road conditions until now) then they will potentially find it a different experience, whereas with greater numbers perhaps it could just be a form of transport rather than an extreme sport. We cycled to central London and all around the city at the weekend. It was really easy going. We wore normal clothes - if we'd have stopped somewhere (obviously didn't) we wouldn't have needed to shower before doing something else!

I guess that's the point isn't it - rather than enlarging the market on Saturdays - enlarge it by having stalls over different days, spread out. There is a consensus that outdoors is better in terms of not spreading the virus than indoors, its not inconceivable to think that there could be some kind of screens for vendors, and with fewer stalls on each day it would make social distancing easier. It may also finally get the stall holders to turn round to face the closed off road, leaving the pavements free for pedestrians who need to pass!

"We have no choice.. This is not ideological opportunism. This is a necessity" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/18/a-new-normal-how-coronavirus-will-transform-transport-in-britains-cities?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Removing parking along at least one side of Lordship lane would be a great idea - allow the road to be used for shopping rather than parking.